The Emergence of Time

Time according to the Big Bang theory began 13.7 Billion years ago.
This Universe exploded into being, expanding in breathtaking speed even as we read this.
This explosion “creates” space as it expands. The difficulty lays in understanding how it started those billions of years ago at a single point, but ever since continues to expand from any given point in the Universe. Not only does it expans on its “outlaying” fringes, but equally rapid is the expansion right in the center of each one of us, or for that matter, at any and all points in space. This is difficult to comprehend but can be grasped if we see it as layers upon layers. Time overlapping itself each instance, leaving not a trace of the “old” behind.

Now we can see how space and time is one unit. The constant flow of time as we experience it from second to second, right now, this succession of moments, always new, ever fresh, reveals to us the expansion or creation of new space.

Time is nothing but the speed of which it takes space to manifest. So time is really fast, if we understand that the speed of light is the fastest anything manifest can expand with. It is extraordinary fast, too fast to comprehend, and therefore usually we can't recognize it in our daily lives.

Even though we feel that our lives are short in comparison to the big scheme of things in the Universe we cover enormous ground in our 70-80 years lifespan. Imagine 70-80 years of life in the speed of light. That covers quite a lot. It's a bolting light. No wonder the body can't take much more.

Time is so much more than the seconds on our wrist watch.

Any thoughts?

Re: The Emergence of Time

Just to give a little backdrop to this emergence I add this quote from Adrew Cohen:

Before the Beginning

When you discover the ground of all Being, you can begin to intuit for yourself what the moment right before the beginning, before the big bang, must have been like. In that emptiness, you experience two things. First, there is unconditional freedom, which is the inherent quality of consciousness when it is unencumbered by attraction to anything other than itself. But also, in that empty no-place, there is a sense of infinite potential. So you can imagine, if you multiply that experience a billionfold, how God might have felt when he or she was meditating in perfect equanimity before the universe was created: Absolute freedom…and anything is possible. You might even be crazy enough to think you could create a universe.

Andrew Cohen

Re: The Emergence of Time

That's a beautiful vision of time-space, Björn.

Is this a vision you have had in your own life/practice, or is it something you've learnt from a teacher/book?


Hälsningar
Pelle

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi Pelle,

It started as a direct realization of, a direct insight into, my own emergence together with the Big Bang way back when. I saw my own origin stretching all the way back, and realized I (we for that matter) exist on the front of Time's projection, heading into the future in neck breaking speed. It was during the last minutes of a teaching Andrew Cohen gave in London a few years ago. It was as the floor under me gave way and I saw through to the beginning of time where my feet were planted. This was remarkable and stunning. Breathtaking and real.

This made me begin to understand the co-relation between time and space, the non-separateness of the two. And motion, or velocity, started to be the very essence of all things manifest. Buddhism describes it in a speed which phenomena comes into being and vanishes. I read some accounts of it by Dogen, the Soto-Zen founder.

Now this is a living experience for me, all in a state of flux, or rather, in an ever increasing speed. The more you focus on it, time, the faster it gets. And at the same time we have this link or root with the very beginning with us all the time. Stretching wildly across the Universe.

It is yours and mine everyday experience. Extraordinary Life.

I have experienced this extraordinary speed at other times in spiritual settings and it is always a rush, a blinding experience of velocity, that is thrilling to say the least.

It seems to contain so much information.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi Bjorn,

I enjoyed your vision of time and space.  I'm also engaged in their exploration including investigation of the knowing capacity.  If you're interested, here's a link that refers to the TSK Pod that explores Time, Space, and Knowledge in which there is a quote regarding the zero experience and a practice I engaged in, which includes a description of what I encountered.

http://davidu.zaadz.com/photos/view/194634#comments

Best wishes,

David

Re: The Emergence of Time

Thanks David,

It seems to me that we are co-emerging with emptiness all the time. Everything we see around us spontaniously arise simultaniously. Like seeing the shiny surface of the sea, knowing that only the top layer is the present moment. Deep beneath lies all past history. We float on the surface as the sea keeps rising, unfelt by us. As we face down, into the deep, we can make out the bottom 13.7 billion years deep. Light emerges from the source and as we turn around to float on our back we watch the stars high above, a future yet to come.

Re: The Emergence of Time

If there were no memory,

would there *be* time?


love

Re: The Emergence of Time

You mean if I forgot my watch and lost track of time, and now I realize I'm missing an appointment that I forgot about, and so, “I'm out of time!”  Or, if humans were extinct and there was no higher intelligence, would time cease to exist as a measure and a concept?  

Seems to me time is more than just a concept; can it be experienced directly at a more fundamental level prior to concepts?  Is time 'there' regardless of memory or future projections or present interpretations?  Is time more than just a measure of moments, etc.?

These are questions that TSK deals with and work with the exercises helps to reveal.

Sorry, must run.  Other demands at the moment.

Best,

David

Re: The Emergence of Time

It's such a paradox. I had this wonderful experience in my early days with Andrew Cohen; I was walking home after Satsang in Bodhgaya, India, and suddenly laughed out loud. I distinctly saw that I had never met Andrew. I had not existed prior to that moment. I had literally no history. Nothing have ever existed! What an illusion. What a joke.

Memory or no memory, history has never happened.

And Freedom has no History. As we can not learn about the present moment from the past.

Re: The Emergence of Time

David : Seems to me time is more than just a concept;


Is it?

Is time just a perception?

or

Is there a perception *of* time?


love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi e and Bjorn,

Thanks for the link e, I've seen that clip before.  It's sad that the man in the clip is impaired and has only short term memory of about 30 seconds, yet has access to enough memory to recognize his wife, have speech abilities, and his ability to play the piano.  No doubt this limits both of their existence compared to most of us. 

At the start the announcer says, ”The whole of our society is built around our ability to comprehend past, present, and future. Every action requires that we understand what just happened and anticipate what will happen next.  This understanding is one of our greatest human abilities.“  He goes on to say he knows we only live in the present, but then asks how long does the present last, answering no longer than a fraction of a second.  And this interval lasts just so long for us to hold onto and join our thoughts.  Then he poses the question for which the clip stands as an example, what would it mean if all we had was this sliver of a present with no memories of the past and no expectations for the future. 

After we see the limited existence of Clive in the video the announcer says, ”Time is so much a part of us, but we rarely question our experience of it, yet it's knitted into the fabric of our being.“  He goes on to say that as a physicist, time is mechanical, it is objective, but as a human being time is also intimate, and that our perception of time can change.  Time can speed up, time can slow down.  Time is very personal, it comes from within. 

When I said that time is more than just a concept, I was referring (like the announcer) to the intimacy of time, not the projections of past to future, but the present sliver of an instant when we can be aware of the fullness that we are.  We are time, but in ignoring the depth of the present we speed time up and flatten it out to a more or less linear progression.  Time can be experienced as more than the linear progression we normally assume, as Bjorn points to in his descriptions above.  

If you're interested, below are some quotes regarding at least three levels of  the experience of Time from Time, Space, Knowledge by Tarthang Tulku.

Best wishes,

David

First Level Time -

The ordinary view of time has the effect of embedding all situations in a linear series so that they gain their significance from their environment or location between the orienting past and the confining future … . So the net effect is deadening as far as appreciation of the present is concerned. (p. 144, TSK)

The self is … in an impoverished version of the `present', which is pointed out by the fact that the self is always up to something, going somewhere, intending something. There is an inherent directedness to the self's position, and this shows up in the tripartite structure of ordinary time–the experienced, ego-centered `present' is always coming from the past and headed toward the future. To be in this kind of present is to be frustrated and off-balance. (p. 173, TSK)

We relegate 'time' to the status of a stable background within which objects and identities are preserved intact, and propositions and interpretations mean something. (p. 194, TSK)

Just as space is the empty container for what is real, so time is the domain within which events occur. `Time' `measures out' or `distributes', separating one event from another and making it possible to establish order. (p. 100, LOK)

Linear time is not only an unbroken flow; rather, it is sharply divided into the three domains of past, present, and future. The present moment stands at the exact center: To one side is the past, fixed and immutable; to the other is the future, not yet known but apparently predictable in principle. (p. 181, LOK)

Second Level Time -

'Time' at this second stage can be seen to be the essential force that lets moment give way to moment, and the factor which permits items within a situation or moment to have their own identities….An actual appreciation of 'time' shows that the way in which it presents identities, differences, and interrelations is a direct evocation of 'space', of 'no-things', of non-plurality. (p. 146, TSK)

We may see all serial `timing' to be occurring in the same place, rather than establishing an extended `world out there'. That is, all going from place to place, experience to experience, which validates the picture of a spread out world, actually occurs as a succession of 'timed out' experiences in the same 'spot'. (p. 151, TSK)

Solid things, places, and directed processes seen on the first level become appreciated–in their second-level 'time' aspect–as being very fluid. This fluid quality is a central feature of 'time', which has been rendered more dry and friction-filled in order for us to play in a first-level way. (p. 161, TSK)

The conventional content of the situation (the 'meanings' given by 'time' as forming a certain observed and existentially charged situation) does not in any essential way relate to that of any other situation or condition. (p. 194, TSK)

Third Level Time -

The Great Space perspective shows everything to be more integrated–an infinite form … without an infinitely extended temporal dimension. From this perspective, different times express only an openness and accommodation of Great Space; they do not establish temporal succession, discrete moments, or `things in time'. (p. 81, TSK)

The vitality of Great Time is the direct expression or evidence of the openness of Great Space. Great Time plumbs the depths and breadth of Great Space. Just as ordinary sound needs space in which to occur, and in turn gives evidence of the extent of that space, so Great Time resounds in, speaks of, and sounds out the infinity of Great Space. All appearance is Great Space. Elaborating on this, we can see that although all form and partitions are Great Space, the givenness of form and the partitioning or drawing up of form into particular configurations is Great Time. Great Time shows or conveys (in both the common evocative and vehicular senses) Great Space by exhibiting infinite variety. (p. 99, TSK)

Re: The Emergence of Time

IN THE TIME OF FREEDOM

Real Time. Mind exists within real time. Real time is the arena of mind. Real time is the lifeblood of the Buddha.

Re: The Emergence of Time

e: “If there were no memory,

would there *be* time?”

“Time is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.”  –Einstein

Re: The Emergence of Time

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.”

-Ford Prefect, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re: The Emergence of Time

David : Seems to me time is more than just a concept;


Is it?

Is time just a perception?

or

Is there a perception *of* time?

From the video clip..

And this interval lasts just so long for us to hold onto and join our thoughts…

So, time is an interval between discrete thoughts.
Time is an interval between one image (thought)

held up to and juxtaposed against another.
These images are held in memory.

Memory = perception

If the images are almost identical,
we attribute their relation as ‘close' in time.
If the images are very different,
we attribute their relation as ‘far' in time.

We could restate what the physicist said more accurately regarding the subjective nature of time. The interval of time is the perceived difference between two thoughts (images).

How is time more than just a concept?


love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

If we say that time is just a concept, it seems to suggest that it doesn't have any truth or validity to it. But if dinner is served from 6pm to 7pm, and you don't know that and arrive at 8pm, then you don't get any dinner. You go to bed hungry. Is it possible to go so far beyond the mind that we don't even see time any more or need to look at our watch but can still make it on time to dinner? Perhaps it is, but it seems to me that time is something we will always have to integrate, that it carries with it a degree of truth or reality.

Degrees of truth might be a more useful paradigm than enlightenment and ignorance. But of course, the risk of saying that there is truth or reality in time could also keep a person attached. But maybe integrating those different truths in the right way, not giving too much importance to them or too little, will actually help a person align and realize more deeply and fully.

Re: The Emergence of Time

“Time is education.” Sly and  the Family Stone.

Re: The Emergence of Time

This is what I find interesting; if we claim to be interested to find the truth why then would anyone of us have any need to hold on to their own views and not venture out to try to understand another perspective?

Rick and e, you both share so much valuable information with us, but also display a rigid stance on what is considered true and not true. This can sometimes amount to what some people call stuck in an Advaita, Absolute view. It doesn't necessarily just have to mean an Advaita view, but represents any view that we choose to hold dear to the expense of any other possible vista.

When I want to share a direct authentic experience of time (albeit not in our ordinary understanding of it) all I ask for is a little interest that could spur our curiosity. The Dharma (or God) hold no limits and you'd be surprised how varied experiential understanding can be.

Your views are often great and true, but if held to when examining other domains, they will actually hinder you from appreciating and learning new things.

I have always seeked for verification of my experiences in Scriptures, Buddhist and Christian alike, to see if it has been encountered before. And yes, much of what I have gone through I can read about, even though some are very little spoken about. Like this time thing. It's not your standard Dharma talk but if you dig a bit you'll find ample evidence of such understanding.

This is really my whole point in regards to the whole business of seeking. In the Jesus thread as well as in any other context. Are we open to take something new in? Can we allow for a different view? Do we dare to let go of our conclusions, no matter how correct they are?

Can we let go of Jesus if we are Christians? Can we let go of the Buddha if we're Buddhists? Can we let go of being Integral? Do you get my drift?

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bjorn,

I have no problem with your poetic renditions of your
experiences. Some I really like.

This was at the end of your first post in this thread.


Time is so much more than the seconds on our wrist watch.

Any thoughts?


I simply posed a question trying to enquire what time *is* before
considering what *more* it is…before the layering of imagery.
Did not even phrase it from a religious point of view but more
from a psychological one that most would easily be able to
follow and join in if the spirit moved them. Some folks
answered and I clarified and posed some more questions,
trying to hone the enquiry…lay it bare.

You seem to not like the bareness of the enquiry? Admittedly
it is not poetic, but does it need to be? I am after all not trying
to render or interpret my or your experience but simply enquire
what time is and so perhaps gain insight into how it emerges.
Oh well, take it easy Bjorn.


love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

How would we approach the question of time from an AQAL perspective?  It seems that saying time is “just” a perception seems to emphasize or privilege only the left-hand quadrants, reducing time to a purely subjective event.  It may be that time only “shows up” in consciousness, as the relationship of one thought to another – the juxtaposition of thoughts or memories, as e suggests.  But if you look at e's example, you still have multiple thoughts or images which are not experienced at the same time.  The example itself presupposes succession, movement, temporal differentiation. 

I am not arguing here that our commonsense experience/understanding of time is absolute or the way things “really” are, but I am suggesting that e's simple dismissal of it (as a mere psychological trick or illusion) is not adequate.  Or, that at least it still presupposes time in its very effort to discredit it.

Even if linear temporality is an illusion – if you push it to its logical limits, you run into logical problems with it – it seems to me that a certain dynamism, energy, infinite creative potentiality, or however you want to put it must be presupposed at a very basic level of existence.  You can point past the manifest world to Spirit or Big Mind, to experiences of emptiness in which there is no apparent movement or succession or sense of duration, and you can describe this condition as timeless – but, you can also describe it as Great Time (as is done in TSK), or as the Fourth Time (as they do in Nyingma Buddhism), or as tempiternity (as Raimundo Panikkar terms it).  In other words, instead of denying time any objective existence at all, you can point through conventional temporality (by demonstrating the logical limitations of the model, or experiencing different orders of time, including no-time) to a reality which transcends and includes it, rather than simply dismisses it as “memory.”  (Notice that “memory” itself presupposes the recording of discrete events in the brain or mind).

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

e: Memory = perception

Actually perception would be there even if memory wasn’t. The perception of this moment exists regardless of memory.
Perception= awareness
and
perception + memory = conception –> delusion
Is a little more accurate. Perhaps this is all semantics? Often people use perception when they mean conception, but they have distinct meanings.

David, again this is getting into the two truths of our actual experiences. Bjorn is trying to say that time exists beyond the relative conception of conscious beings. This is what e and myself are debating. Not the relative time that we live our lives by.
We have to always be careful and see how the poetic reification of concepts is what leads to all the suffering in the world. When we boil down the act of an Islamic fundamentalist blowing himself up, is it really more than an act of trying to share their feelings of god’s love and presence with the rest of us? It is of course more complex and political than that, but if the language of poetics is needed, then we can do that too.
The point is that the mind that reifies concepts, can reify any concept, be it time, god, good, evil, etc… This all comes from the same quality of mind.
Time has been shown time and time again to be a relative, and therefore, not actual in any sense beyond the minds of conscious beings. This is a hard scientific truth. Therefore, to contradict it is to step away from the truth.
If I were to post an optical illusion of straight, parallel lines that were presented in a way that made them appear to be slanted to each at different angles, and you knew that they weren’t actually slanted, you would still see slanted lines. Knowing that they weren’t wouldn’t change the way the brain functions. But, it is different to see something one way and to know that it is an illusion, and to argue that regardless of the facts, the lines are slanted, because you see them that way. This is the myth of the given, isn’t it?

Time is real to Bjorn, and god is real to a fundamentalist, good and evil are real to the people in the White house and it got us in a war.

When Huang Po wrote, “A wise man believes what he sees, and not what he thinks,” he wasn’t talking about visual sensing, but of seeing past the illusion, and not relying on concepts and feelings.

I don’t want you to think that I’m saying that an expression of feelings and concepts are wrong, or that it is possible to not express only these things. I’m just saying that one must qualify such things. The balance should be maintained.

rick

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce: “Even if linear temporality is an illusion – if you push it to its logical limits, you run into logical problems with it”

In order for linear time to exist there must be time. That is, there must be a past, present and a future. The past and the future are concepts that exist nowhere but in the mind. If all there is, is the present moment, then how is there time? If the past and future actually exist, then where are they outside of your mind?
It seems that logical problems of paradoxes only exist when one posits the existence of time. It is like saying that there is motion without a mover?
The same happens when you posit matter as antecedent to consciousness. To quote a foremost physicist, Sir Arthur Eddington, “Physics is the study of the structure of consciousness. The stuff of the world is mindstuff.”

Nick Herbert, another renowned physicist:
If we take the fourth dimension seriously, we must believe that past and future have always existed, and that human consciousness, for reasons we do not comprehend, perceives this ‘block universe’ one moment at a time, giving rise to the illusion of a continually changing present.

Or, mathematician, Weyl:
The objective world simply is; it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line of my body, does a section of this world come to life as a fleeting image which continuously changes in time.

So the concept of time can easily be deconstructed in any quadrant. You pick a quadrant and I’ll deconstruct it for you.
This might seem like we are replacing one unknown for another, but in fact we are simply replacing a made-up concept with a real unknown.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Actually, Rick, logical problems also arise if you deny any reality to time.  The paradoxes enter through both doors, and you end up with the “unknown” no matter which one you enter.  Which is why I'm saying I think it is too simplistic to simply come down on the timelessness side of the picture.  For instance, if you say that there is only the present, unchanging moment, in which all past, present, and future exist at once (and I'm not actually denying that this is true or possible), then how do you explain the appearance of succession, change, development – the arrow of time, the movement of thought, the effectiveness of intention, the fact of experience, etc?  If you squeeze all “happening” into a single dimensionless point, would there be any experience at all?  But if appearance somehow manifests out of this dimensionsless no-time, how can you begin to explain it without first invoking time?  As Nick Herbert says (I've read his books too), if block time is true (notice this is still a form of time), then we simply cannot explain (at this point) how consciousnessness parses this all-at-onceness one moment at a time, to give the impression of change?  (Notice also that by saying “one moment at a time,” Herbert is still presupposing the mechanism of time in his very attempt to explain the experience of time).

I agree that temporality is, in an important way, a function of consciousness or knowing.  But from my own studies of this material, I think it is more coherent to speak of time, knowing, and space as inseparable, without reducing one category to the other (each appears to presuppose and require the others for its meaning and coherence).  Time-space-knowing are, in a sense, relative, dependent arisings; appearance is not just a spacetime event, as some materialist physicists posit, but spacetimeknowledge. 

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Oh of course. There is obviously something that we are experiencing now, at this moment. We just have no idea what. We do know that it isn’t something that happens sans our awareness though. To say that time is not actual in this relative sense would be ridiculous. I think after a few more posts we will most likely come back to a middle ground as we did in the last few debated topic threads. Time, however is relative to motion. The faster to the speed of light we travel the slower time elapses in a relative sense, but we are not aware of this shift of time.
Since we cannot step outside of our conscious mind, we cannot know this directly though.
Simply stated, without a conscious mind to perceive and remember single moments, time would no exist, and without the conception of time, our experience of daily life could not happen. Both are equally interdependent upon each other for being, and therefore are equally lacking of any kind of inherent being.
You only actually end up with an unknown if you understand that you have no idea what is happening, not in the flow of time, but in every single moment. Otherwise, you think you know what’s happening, when your just ignorant without knowing it. A religious fundamentalists feels a secure ground under their feet, but that feeling is mind made and no where to be actually found.
If you watch an analog movie at 35 frames per second, you see motion, but you always know that the individual pictures aren’t actually moving. To know this doesn’t destroy the illusion or the enjoyment of the film. Reality is like this.

“But from my own studies of this material, I think it is more coherent to speak of time, knowing, and space as inseparable, without reducing one category to the other (each appears to presuppose and require the others for its meaning and coherence). ”

This is exactly what I have been saying, or at least trying to say. The logical conclusion that some seem to not be drawing is that if something requires something else to “be” then it can’t be said to be one thing. Where is the border between motion, space, time, and consciousness? These are concepts. In reality there is just this experience or this moment. Have you ever experienced one moment become another? That is, can you tell me when one moment ends and another begins within this flow of time? Have you ever experienced anything but this present moment? No, of course not. How can such a concept exist anywhere but in the mind. It is like space. Space has a name but no form. Time is like this.
From your post, I suspect you know this already though.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Just a quick note for now.

There is no need for me to “believe” in time. Whether I or anyone else thinks about it we still all live through time. So time is more then the mere concept in our mind. That is just naming it, just as we do with all other things.
Time or no-time can be argued non-existent from an absolute perspective but that's only half the story (stuck in Advaita), because we can never speak of circumstances that are non-existent like if there were no beings to cognate time or anything else for that matter.

I have no problem with your points of view Rick, or yours e, that is not my point with this inquiry. Yeah e, I'll take it easy. It's not the whole world. But I see not even a hint of a interest in something outside of your already made up mind?

Maybe “time” is not what you think

Re: The Emergence of Time

Part of the issue is that not everyone believes that evolution is directional and that it tends to lead towards greater complexity, integration, harmony, etc. Until everyone agrees on that I don't think a conversation about time could go anywhere.

Another issue is there seems to be a need for something to link the absolute with the manifest realm. The Absolute/ego model leaves us with enlightenment and ignorance, nirvana and samsara, reality and illusion. That's a premodern interpretation, isn't it? There's no transcend and include in that, for one thing, or there's transcend but no include.

If we see the evolutionary impulse, or the authentic self, linked with the absolute, issuing from the absolute, marching on towards greater complexity and integration if we let it, then time's no longer exclusively samsaric.

Re: The Emergence of Time

From an absolute point of view there is nothing! No me, no you, no mind, no time, no space, no God, no nothing. This can be absolutely experienced and known. This is awesome and we'll experience a freedom beyond anything we'd ever known.
This is the Advaita view; nothing ever happened, nothing ever existed. Realize that and be free.

That's all good and well, but there is more to it, believe it or not.

Onto this white blank background these black letters appear, and likewise does our Universe manifest with all its content, including you and me. Time/Space is our manifest context, of which all things arise and disappear. Time/Space itself arise and disappear in the speed of light and that's why it appears to have no time. It layers itself upon itself and each instance is instantly erased by its next. Nothing remains of what has been and can not be traced. Only light traveling through space gives us an indication of time, but nevertheless, “time” can be experienced, as well as no-time can be experienced. Light speed can be experienced as well. Nothing is really outside of our ability to directly experience it.

There is no way we can separate these two sides of one coin. It is only our point of view that changes. Reality never stops and asks if its real.

Since all here seem very at home with an absolute point of view and understand its radical implication on human life, why not inquire into something most clearly don't have a clue about? Real Time or real Space. Ignorance is simply us ignoring whats in front of us all the time. Experiential understanding is needed and it's not easy but why not see if we can pursue it?

It's a cop-out to say time is non-existent. We can just about advaita anything that we don't care to examine more closely.

Sorry, maybe I have lost it completly?

Re: The Emergence of Time

I don't think you've lost it, Bjorn. There was a bias against the manifest realm in all the premodern traditions, or nearly all of them at any rate, certainly Hinduism and Buddhism, and that hasn't been corrected yet by every school.

Re: The Emergence of Time

e: Memory = perception

Rick: Actually perception would be there even if memory wasn't. The perception of this moment exists regardless of memory.
Perception= awareness

Here is how I am using perception, from dictionary.com

Perception : Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.

How would we approach the question of time from an AQAL perspective?  It seems that saying time is “just” a perception seems to emphasize or privilege only the left-hand quadrants, reducing time to a purely subjective event. 

The physicist in the clip (did you watch it?), and many more thru the last century, thought they were investigating time objectively only to find themselves pointed towards the inner subjective nature of time. Pure objectivity is the unicorn of all right quadrant sciences. They all operate on beliefs, they are just tucked away nicely in the postulates of their models.

It may be that time only “shows up” in consciousness, as the relationship of one thought to another - the juxtaposition of thoughts or memories, as e suggests.  But if you look at e's example, you still have multiple thoughts or images which are not experienced at the same time.  The example itself presupposes succession, movement, temporal differentiation. 

Very astute Balder!! But I am merely starting the enquiry, laying the groundwork we can all agree upon and start from. Can you posit another more plausible way in which time appears? Otherwise we are left with what I proposed as the best guess in how we intuit time, yes?

I am not arguing here that our commonsense experience/understanding of time is absolute or the way things “really” are, but I am suggesting that e's simple dismissal of it (as a mere psychological trick or illusion) is not adequate.  Or, that at least it still presupposes time in its very effort to discredit it.

I am not intending to discredit or dismiss anything…just investigating. This is the place where I see time ‘emerging' i.e. perception. Again, can you posit a plausible alternative we could also consider?

—-

Bjorn, I am just asking a very simple question. How do we intuit time? I am not ‘advaitaing anything away, stuck in a view, whatever. You see I have been around long enough to see that paradigms shift. Folks thought the world was flat, now there is a big bang. You want to embrace the current paradigm and go flying around at the speed of light…awesome!!… pick me up and I will bring the beverages and snacks. But what if all this movement, time, space, evolution, etc. is illusory? What if you are just yanking your own chain? In the end, no big deal, I will still hand you the chips as you pilot your spaceship named Evolution at the speed of light on our grand folly. I will even call you Captain. :-)


love


e

Re: The Emergence of Time

e wrote:  The physicist in the clip (did you watch it?), and many more thru the last century, thought they were investigating time objectively only to find themselves pointed towards the inner subjective nature of time. Pure objectivity is the unicorn of all right quadrant sciences. They all operate on beliefs, they are just tucked away nicely in the postulates of their models.

I actually have not watched the clip yet, though I should have time to do so now that I've returned from my vacation.  But in any event, I was not arguing for a “purely objective” investigation or description of time.  From an AQAL perspective, the quadrants tetra-enact, so I was just saying we should be wary of explanations which appear to reduce phenomena to single-quadrant terms. 

I said:  It may be that time only “shows up” in consciousness, as the relationship of one thought to another - the juxtaposition of thoughts or memories, as e suggests.  But if you look at e's example, you still have multiple thoughts or images which are not experienced at the same time.  The example itself presupposes succession, movement, temporal differentiation. 

e responded:  Very astute Balder!! But I am merely starting the enquiry, laying the groundwork we can all agree upon and start from. Can you posit another more plausible way in which time appears? Otherwise we are left with what I proposed as the best guess in how we intuit time, yes?

I'm happy to keep up this inquiry with you, e.  I think it is an important, and even potentially transformative, one.  I agree that our “sense” of time, particularly as a unidirectional movement or flow of experience, appears to emerge and grow more sophisticated as our memory  and our cognitive capacities also develop.  However, I just wanted to point out that the whole inquiry, the whole model for the “emergence” of the (sense) of time still presupposes time.

e wrote:  I am not intending to discredit or dismiss anything…just investigating. This is the place where I see time ‘emerging' i.e. perception. Again, can you posit a plausible alternative we could also consider?

Again, as I was suggesting above, the model you've offered to explain the “emergence” of time (as a mere perceptual trick arising out of the juxtaposition of images or memories) appears to require the presupposition of time.  As we start this inquiry, I first want to press home how difficult it is to get away from time, just so we don't rush forward too quickly.  Do you agree that the model you've offered still has “time” built into it?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

e, I agree. On one side it is all an illusion. I do not contend that. But that doesn't get me excited anymore. I used to, but since then I've fallen back to Earth and happily get my hands dirty digging up all of this shite.

I can only say the ride was an awesome one. Staggering ever increasing velocity. Once up in the valleys of Gangotri I stayed in a small ashram belonging to a dead Guru. The first night I spent there he entered my field of awareness and said that I am the Absolute. My experience was one of extreme velocity. Everything happened so fast. In the morning I came out shell shocked my head spinning.

How can I explain coffee? I'd tasted it and now want you to taste it too. It's pretty good.

When Dogen describes the Earth fall away beneath his feet, we fall all the way down deep time to the beginning. An extreme long fall but because there is no actual space we fall in instant speed. I tried to find his rendering of the speed of appearances but still haven't found anything. If I do I'll post it.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Found it!

In this essay Dogen presents his unique idea on Time. Although Dogen has touched on this subject elsewhere, he gives it the most detailed treatment in Uji. Dogen wrote Uji in the early winter of 1240 when he was 41 years old. At that time he was staying at Koshoji in the suburbs of Kyoto.

The Zen master (Yueh-shan) says: “Standing on the peak of a high mountain is uji. Diving to the bottom of the deep ocean is uji. The one with three heads and eight arms is uji. He who stands one jo and six or eight shaku is uji. The staff and hossu are uji. The pillar and lamp are uji. You and your neighbor are uji. The great earth and vast sky are uji.” This uji means that time is existence and that all existence is time.

The golden body of one jo six shaku is time. Because it is time, there are the ornaments and lights of time. So we must study the 12 hours confronting us. It is time that draws out the body with three heads and eight arms. Because it is time, it interpenetrates with the present 12 hours. Though we have not yet measured the span of 12 hours, we call it 12 hours. Because time's transit leaves traces, man does not doubt it. Though he does not doubt, he does not understand. Because the ordinary man does not think from the deep ground, he of course doubts all things that he does not fully understand. For this reason, his future doubts never harmonize with his present doubts. And even doubt is nothing but a part of time.

There is no world without this doubting self, for this self is the world itself. We must look on everything in this world as time. Each thing stands in unimpeded relation just as each moment stands unimpeded. Therefore, (from the standpoint of time) the desire for enlightenment arises spontaneously; (from the standpoint of mind) time arises with the same mind. This applies also to training and enlightenment. Thus we see by entering within: the self is time itself.

Such being the truth, we must learn that there are many appearances and grasses throughout the earth and that each grass and each appearance are not apart from the entire earth. Holding this view is the point of departure for training. When we reach this sphere of our journey's end, there is one grass and one appearance. We sometimes meet the appearance and sometimes not; some times we meet the glass and sometimes not. (In this way training and enlightenment vary.) Be cause it is only time of this sort, uji is all time, and each grass and each appearance are time. In each moment there are all existences and all worlds. Try to think - Are any existences or worlds separated from time?

For ordinary people who do not know Buddhism, the following thought occurs when they hear the word “uji”. At one time the Buddha was active with three heads and eight arms and at another time he was one jo and six or eight shaku. As he crossed rivers and mountains; the mountain and river - we have passed there and dwelt in this stately palace; they are individuated mountain-river and I and heaven and earth.

But time is not merely this. When climbing such mountains and crossing such rivers, I am present, and if I am, time is. Since I am here now, time cannot be separated from me. If time does not have the form of coming and going, the moment of climbing the mountain is the eternal now. If time takes the form of coming and going, I have the eternal now - this also is uji. Doesn't the time of climbing the mountain and crossing the river swallow the time of dwelling in the stately palace? Doesn't the time of dwelling in the stately palace throw up the time climbing the mountain and crossing the river? Three heads and eight arms are yesterday's one jo and six or eight shaku is today's time. But what we call yesterday and today are actually one time, just as when we go suddenly into the mountains and see myriad peaks at one glance. Time itself does now flow. Even (yesterday's) three heads and eight arms pass by as our uji: it looks like it is over there, but it is now. Even (today's) one jo and six or eight shaku passes by as our uji; it looks like it is over there, but it is now. So the pine tree is time; the bamboo is time. Do not think that time merely flies by. Do not learn that flying by is the only function of time. For if you recognize time as flying by, there is an interval (between going and coming). The truth of uji is not truly grasped because time is understood as only passing.

Ultimately all existences are linked and become time. Because, it is uji, it is my personal time. Uji has the trait of continuity. It goes from to- day to morrow, from today to yesterday, from yesterday to today, from today to today, and from tomorrow to tomorrow. Because continuity is a characteristic of time, time past and time present do not pile up. Because there is no lining up and congestion, Seigen (Ch'ing-yuan) is time; Obaku (Huang-po) is time; Kosei (Ma-tsu) is time; Sekito (Shih-t'ou) is time. Because the self and others are already time, training and enlightenment are time. Similarly entering mud and water (entering society) is time. He is said that the present views of ordinary people and the causal relation of their views are what ordinary people see. But this is really not the law of ordinary people. The Law merely puts ordinary people into temporary causal relations. Because we learn that this time and this existence are not the law, we think that the one-jo-six-shaku golden body is not ourselves. We try to escape the fact that we are the one-jo-six-shaku golden body. Even in this case we are a part of uji: those who are not yet enlightened are a part of uji.

The horse (12 o'clock) and sheep (one o'clock), lined up in order in the present world, are indicated by the fixation of time rising and falling. The mouse (6 o'clock) is time; the tiger (8 o'clock) is time. All beings are time; Buddhas are time. Then gods in the heavens enlighten the world with their three heads and eight arms; Buddhas enlighten the world with their one-jo and six-shaku golden body. To transcend the active and passive is called penetrating the world. Becoming the true Buddha is manifested in search, in training, in enlightenment, in Nirvana. This is existence-and time. There is only the thorough studying of all time as all existence; there is nothing else. Because delusions are delusions, half-studied uji is the study of half-uji. Even a mistakenly seen body is existence (and time). And if you leave it at mistake, embracing the before and after of expressions of mistake, you dwell in uji. Working freely in your own situation - this is uji. Do not hesitate, thinking it is nothing - nor go out of your way to consider it all. Most people think that time is only transitory. They do not understand that it dwells in its own situation. Their idea can be called time, but it is mistaken. Seeing time as transitory, they cannot penetrate to the fact the uji dwells iits own situation. How can such people find liberation! Even though recognizing that time dwells in its own situation, who can express such freedom? Even if you can express this attainment over a long period, you still are groping for your natural face. If you think of uji in the common way, even wisdom and enlightenment become only appearances in time coming and going.

Uji arises, free from desire. It materializes now here, now there. Even the king of heaven and his retainers are not separated from uji manifested. Other beings on land and in water also arise from uji. All things in darkness and light arise from uji. These manifestations become the time process. Not a single thing arises apart from uji. You must not think that continuity passes from east to west like a storm. All worlds are not immovable; nor are they stationary - this is continuity. It is like spring; in spring there are events, and these are called continuity. You must realize that there is nothing outside of continuity; for example, the continuity of spring always continues spring. You must understand in detail that although continuity is not spring, it is fulfilled at the time of this spring because it is the continuity of spring. Ordinary people think that continuity is beyond and that it passes east through many worlds and ones. This view shows lack of training.

Zen master Yakusan Kodo (Yueh-shan Hung-tae), on the advice of Zen master Wu-chi (Sekito-Shih-t'ou), visited Zen master Chiang-hsi Ta-chi (Ma-tsu Tao-i). He said: “I have studied nearly all the 12 teachings of the three vehicles. What is the meaning of the patriarch's coming from the West?” Chiang-hsi Ta-chi answered: “Some times I make the Buddha raise his eyebrows and blink his eyes. Sometimes I do not make him raise his eyebrows and blink his eyes. Sometimes it is good to make him do these things. Sometimes it is not good to make him do these things. What do you think of this?” When he heard this, Yueh-shan was enlightened, and he said to Ta chi: “When I was at the Zen monastery of Shih t'ou, it was like a mosquito trying to bite an iron bull.” What Ta-chi is trying to say is not the same as what the others are trying to say. Raising the eyebrows is the mountain and ocean. Because the mountain and ocean are raising the eyebrows - to do this act - you should truly see the form of the mountain. If you would grasp the meaning of the blinking, you should truly see the ocean. This and that are accustomed to each other; the active is introduced to the passive- and is one. Not-good is not always no-good. These are all uji. The mountain is time; the ocean is time. If they were not, there would be no mountain and no ocean. You cannot say that there is no time in the absolute present of the mountain and ocean. If time decays, the mountain and ocean will decay. If time does not decay, the mountain and ocean do not decay. Through this principle (the self-identity of time and things) eyes appear the plucked flower appears - this is time. If it is not, all this is not.

Zen master Kuei-hsing was a follower of the Rinzai school and a disciple of Shou-shan Hsing nien. To the assembled trainees he said: “Sometimes the will reaches there but words do not. Sometimes words reach there but the will does not. Sometimes both the will and words reach there. Sometimes neither the will nor words reach there.” Both the will and words are uji; reaching and not reaching are both uji. Although when reaching there, it is incomplete, when not reaching there, it is already here. (Reaching there and time are different.) The will is the donkey, words the horse. The horse means words, the donkey will. Reaching is not coming; not reaching is not, not coming. Uji is like that. Reaching is hindered by reaching and not hindered by not reaching. Not reaching is hindered by not reaching and not hindered by reaching. As for will, through will, we penetrate will; as for words, through words, we penetrate words. As for hindrance, through hindrance, we penetrate hindrance; hindrance hinders hindrance - this is time. Hindrance is used by other things, but there is no hindrance that hinders other things. I meet people; people meet people; I meet myself; and departure meets departure. This would not be if they did not share time. Will is the time of the Koan in daily life; words are the time of the supreme key (to truth); reaching is the time of wholeness (total appearance); not reaching is the time of contact with this and of separation from this. You must understand this and experience it.

Although Zen masters up to now have said all this, I must repeat it. I must say: Will and words that half reach are uji; will and words that half do not reach are uji. This is the way we should study. Making him raise his eyebrows and blink his eyes is half uji; making him raise his eye brows and blink his eyes is full uji; not making him raise his eyebrows and blink his eyes is half uji; not making him raise his eyebrows and blink his eyes is full uji. To study this and experience it and not to study this and experience it are both the time of uji.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Here's a link to a good exposition of Dogen's thought:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/heine.htm

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce: “As Nick Herbert says (I’ve read his books too), if block time is true (notice this is still a form of time), then we simply cannot explain (at this point) how consciousnessness parses this all-at-onceness one moment at a time, to give the impression of change? (Notice also that by saying “one moment at a time,” Herbert is still presupposing the mechanism of time in his very attempt to explain the experience of time).”

I think the main point here is that we cannot explain consciousness. We know that it may have something more to do with the head than with the foot, but that’s about it. That is the whole of our current understanding. So what consciousness does, which is to parse the Whole into parts, is also beyond us.
As far as saying Herbert is using the linguistics of time to deconstruct time as a reality, is merely a semantic argument. Again, does an individual frame of a movie change over time? Does it become the next frame? At 35 frames per second, when does one frame become another? You see time, because of a compounding of discrete moments within the field of memory. If this memory wasn’t there, then there would be no concept of time, and no way to conceive of time, any more than a two dimensional being can conceive of 3 dimensional space.
The earth spins, but it spins in relation to what? The rest of the universe. If there was only the earth, could it be said to spin? You simply have to think in larger terms and scales.

Re: The Emergence of Time

        I. THE HERMENEUTICS OF TEMPORALITY

 In  the  first  two  sections  of  the  fascicle  on  “Buddha-nature”  (“Bussho”(a)) in the Shobogenzo, Dogen critically revises or, it could  be said, deliberately  and creatively rewrites traditionally honored sayings from the Nirvana Sutra and Zen master Huai-hai  in order  to bring  them in accord with his own understanding and expression of impermanence (mujo(d)) as the true basis of reality and direct disclosure of an  experience of non-substantiality (muga(e)). That is, he challenges, reinterprets and restates, even  at the risk of grammatical  distortion, previous  views  of Buddha-nature  which convey what he believes to be a misconception of time, however subtle or veiled, in that they overlook or violate the spontaneous moment-to-moment  process of  arising-desistence, life-death, coming-going. The tendency  to misrepresent  impermanence by  an attachment  to Buddha-nature, conceived of either as a futural goal beyond this present  moment or as a fixed substratum underlying  it, betrays an eternalist clinging which seeks enlightenment outside rather than fully within temporal  conditions  and the mutability  of dharmic factors, and therefore reflects the lack of genuine realization of non-self.

Dogen insists on eliminating even the slightest doctrinal discrepancy between Buddha-nature and the immediate here-and-now presencing of the multidimensional unity of being-time (uji(f)), such that “time (ji(g)) itself is already none other than all  beings (u(h));  beings  are none other than time.”(1)  Because he asserts the efficacy  of language, in contrast to the Rinzai view of Zen as a “special transmission outside the teaching” (kyoge betsuden(l) ), and is not satisfied with the rationale that Buddhist sayings are provisional  and ultimately discardable, Dogen attempts to correct rather than reject apparently misleading statements. By recasting previous expressions, he shows not only what  they omitted  or stated incorrectly, but also what they really intended  to say, the truth at once embedded in and concealed by the fabric of the words; he does not seek  to destroy  the notion of Buddha-nature but to recover and restore its genuine temporal meaning free of traces of eternalism.


Isn't this great? To read more see the link above.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Although Dogen acknowledges  the limitations  of
        unedifying or indulgent discourse, he maintains that
        the  simultaneous   interrelatedness   of  past  and
        present enlightenment  experiences  demands that the
        Dharma be perpetually reexplored and renewed through
        creative expressions of its inexhaustible  meanings.
        The “passage of being-time  from today to yesterday”
        allows Dogen to reach back to recover  the past, and
        the “passage from yesterday  to today” requires that
        he justify  his own standpoint  in terms of previous
        accomplishments.  The  historical  distance  between
        past  and  present  is not denied  but  upheld  as a
        positive  and productive  possibility  rather than a
        negative   factor   or   inherent   impediment    to
        understanding.   The   temporal   gap   is  at  once
        heightened to allow the present–already  influenced
        by the past–to  review and restate  the past from a
        new vantage point(“passage from today to tomorrow”),
        and dissolved  in that both  phases  constitute  the
        flexible  unity  of here-and-now  experience.  Dogen
        suggests  that neither text nor current practice are
        autonomous  entities but continuously  challenge one
        another, and  that  out of the  interdependence  and
        mutuality  of their  encounter, truth  is disclosed.
        One  should  neither  submit  to  the  authority  of
        scripture  nor  subvert  it to his  own perspective,
        neither  simply accept nor reject prior expressions,
        but partake  with  them  in an on-going  process  of
        dialogue    and    observation,   exploration    and
        examination(“passage from today to today”) by which
both parties enlighten  and enhance each other,
and are in turn subject  to the critical
        scrutiny   of  the  future,  a  gaze  which  already
        influences  the present (“passage  from tomorrow  to
        tomorrow”) .

Re: The Emergence of Time

e wrote: The physicist in the clip (did you watch it?), and many more thru the last century, thought they were investigating time objectively only to find themselves pointed towards the inner subjective nature of time. Pure objectivity is the unicorn of all right quadrant sciences. They all operate on beliefs, they are just tucked away nicely in the postulates of their models.

Bruce responded: I actually have not watched the clip yet, though I should have time to do so now that I've returned from my vacation. But in any event, I was not arguing for a “purely objective” investigation or description of time. From an AQAL perspective, the quadrants tetra-enact, so I was just saying we should be wary of explanations which appear to reduce phenomena to single-quadrant terms.

Gotcha, my feeling is all cultures, people etc. experience time. They all use verbs implying movement. Many queries from the culture of physics lead back to (like many other queries) Zone 1. (There may be at least one culture that does not have time in their vocabulary though…a tribe somewhere…can't recall the anecdote.)

-

Bruce wrote: It may be that time only “shows up” in consciousness, as the relationship of one thought to another - the juxtaposition of thoughts or memories, as e suggests. But if you look at e's example, you still have multiple thoughts or images which are not experienced at the same time. The example itself presupposes succession, movement, temporal differentiation.

e responded: Very astute Balder!! But I am merely starting the enquiry, laying the groundwork we can all agree upon and start from. Can you posit another more plausible way in which time appears? Otherwise we are left with what I proposed as the best guess in how we intuit time, yes?

Bruce responded: I'm happy to keep up this inquiry with you, e. I think it is an important, and even potentially transformative, one. I agree that our “sense” of time, particularly as a unidirectional movement or flow of experience, appears to emerge and grow more sophisticated as our memory and our cognitive capacities also develop. However, I just wanted to point out that the whole inquiry, the whole model for the “emergence” of the (sense) of time still presupposes time.

Yes, of course. We appear 'stuck' in time. Using Bjorn's title, I was just trying to point to how the sense of time emerges as succinctly as possible. Rick used a nice metaphor of the still frames of film for memory flashing or pulsing creating the illusion of time. And yes, any sense of Now or Presence presupposes past & future, no matter how present the instant (of time). OK where do we want to go from here?

—-

Bjorn, I have had similar experiences with infinity. In college Plato's allegory of the cave had an effect on me. I was contemplating it for a few weeks when one night I was lucid dreaming and came to a place where any question asked was answered. I asked, 'what is truth?'…immediately my awareness expanded to infinity at an inconceivable velocity (should have asked what the next days lottery was). I have had other experiences where the sense of existing in space disappeared (I have a very keen sense of direction). And now in meditation I experience infinite space and infinite consciousness almost at will. Thanks for the Dogen quotes. I will check them out.

—

Rick, have you read Tertium Organum by Ouspensky?

Your second dimensional being & third dimension comment sounded like him.


p&l,


e

Re: The Emergence of Time

There’s a lot to say and no time to say it, oh, damn you time!

e: “Gotcha, my feeling is all cultures, people etc. experience time. They all use verbs implying movement. Many queries from the culture of physics lead back to (like many other queries) Zone 1. (There may be at least one culture that does not have time in their vocabulary though…a tribe somewhere…can’t recall the anecdote.)”

You might be thinking of Whorf’s study of the Hopi. Whorf, who is the second name in the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, was really into linguistic relativity, but also proposed a kind of linguistic determinism. One of his more famous studies was done with the Hopi, where he showed how they have a completely different conception of time than we do, and this is related to their language. They simply don’t speak of time the way we do. Later, his work was shown to be over reaching of the actual data, but he shook things up.
Australian Aboriginal dream time is also very interesting and complex.

“Rick, have you read Tertium Organum by Ouspensky?

Your second dimensional being & third dimension comment sounded like him.”

No. I’m only framiliar with Ouspensky through Girjief (sp?). I used to quote Ouspensky from that though, and I can’t remember what it was. My conception of the universe has changed so much over the last 10 years, that I have a hard time even remembering what I used to think. I’ll have to look up where I got that dimensional example from. It was from a physicist I believe.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick said:  As far as saying Herbert is using the linguistics of time to deconstruct time as a reality, is merely a semantic argument. Again, does an individual frame of a movie change over time? Does it become the next frame? At 35 frames per second, when does one frame become another? You see time, because of a compounding of discrete moments within the field of memory. If this memory wasn't there, then there would be no concept of time, and no way to conceive of time, any more than a two dimensional being can conceive of 3 dimensional space.
The earth spins, but it spins in relation to what? The rest of the universe. If there was only the earth, could it be said to spin? You simply have to think in larger terms and scales.

As in other conversations we've had, I agree that part of the difficulty may be semantic (what I mean by time, for instance, may be different from what you mean).  But I do not think the several instances in which I've pointed out the hidden presupposition of time in the very models which attempt to deconstruct or disprove time is merely semantic.  For instance, look at your example of the frames of a filmstrip.  You point out that they do not change, but only appear to do so when “run” or processed at a certain speed.  In this example, you have denied temporality in one direction, but reinserted it in another.  The images themselves do not change, and yet they are “accessed” in sequence, at a particular rate, which gives the impression of change, and this again is another manifestation of time:  the shuffling of images, the movement back and forth between perception and memory, the “parsing” of the whole, all suggest a dynamic aspect of consciousness (at the least) which can be considered the “activity” of time.

Regarding your example of the dependence of the concept of time on memory, the same could be said of consciousness:  without memory, without the ability to differentiate one perception or thought from another and therefore register the fact that you are perceiving and thinking at all, would there be any concept of consciousness?  Since memory implies time (the recording of particular events), you could just as easily say that without time, there would be no consciousness. 

In my opinion, I think a more fruitful approach might be along the lines Dogen suggests, or along the lines that are actively pursued in TSK:  an inquiry into time, a deeper engagement with time, instead of dismissing it as a relative-level illusion or a trick of the brain.

~*~

e wrote:  Gotcha, my feeling is all cultures, people etc. experience time. They all use verbs implying movement. Many queries from the culture of physics lead back to (like many other queries) Zone 1. (There may be at least one culture that does not have time in their vocabulary though…a tribe somewhere…can't recall the anecdote.)

I believe you're thinking of the Hopis, who do not have a concept of past or future (at least, they do not conceive of them in the same way that we do).

e wrote:  We appear 'stuck' in time. Using Bjorn's title, I was just trying to point to how the sense of time emerges as succinctly as possible. Rick used a nice metaphor of the still frames of film for memory flashing or pulsing creating the illusion of time. And yes, any sense of Now or Presence presupposes past & future, no matter how present the instant (of time). OK where do we want to go from here?

As I was suggesting to Rick, I think it might be more fruitful to inquire into time, possibly opening or expanding our definition of it, than to simply write it off as a trick of perception.  Because it seems that the activity of perception itself appears to require “time” (as any attempt to explain the “emergence” or construction of time in perception appears to presuppose a certain dynamism and vitality of presence/presencing, even while it may reveal a particular order of time as a fiction or an incomplete picture).

The writings by Dogen that Bjorn has posted provide an interesting starting point.  And the TSK vision is rich with similar examples and inquiries.  I may post something from this tradition in my next post (Davidu offered some quotes early on in this discussion). 

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi Bjorn,

Regarding an insight into an opening of time, you said above: ”It was as the floor under me gave way and I saw through to the beginning of time where my feet were planted. This was remarkable and stunning. Breathtaking and real.“ 

The question, 'what if we could experience time in this 'open' manner whenever we choose?' has long been a fascinating one for me.  It's one of the reasons I engage in the TSK exercises, to attempt not to ignore time as I normally tend, and to also discern time's manifestations in me.  If you're interested, here's a link to an example of a combination of two other TSK exercises and my practice notes.

http://pods.zaadz.com/tsk/discussions/view/152184#152184

You also said: ”Now this is a living experience for me, all in a state of flux, or rather, in an ever increasing speed. The more you focus on it, time, the faster it gets.“ 

This is interesting, because working with time employing many of the TSK exercises, it's been my experience when I narrow focus, the appearance of form as time seems to speed by.  The sense of speed comes from the position I momentarily assume as subject whether they are opinions, beliefs or ideas, etc. We assume we are fixed as phenomena and objects at assumed distance speed by, and also by the way we fix ourselves 'here' and recall the past and project the future, we thus maintain the continuous linear, and fast, rushing quality we feel about losing time.  Our position, that sliver of an instant keeps 'timing out'.  But if I'm able to remain open to what is presenting and become aware of the position I've assumed, that position dissolves, and allows for an even more encompassing awareness where motion seems to cease and presentations are presenting as bursts of fundamental or nuclear events.

The point to my practice is not to accumulate interesting experiences, but to learn to engage time-space-knowing more openly, more directly.  This improves the quality of my living, away from seemingly endless position that tends toward the narrowly myopic.  But in the end, the time-space-knowledge vision is a model that is dissolved as we ultimately open ourselves to our own Being.

As far as the inquiry into what is time, I look forward to reading what e and Balder and others have to say.  

Best wishes
David

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi David,

“Bursts of nuclear events…” I can relate to that. A never ceasing, ever constant, “bubbling up” of manifestation. That is a real sense of the ever new arising of this moment, ever so fresh, ever so intoxicating.

“Like a Spring, ever afresh, nature -in celebration and in joy, explodes into infinite patterns.”

But the speed I was referring to was not me in relationship to anything else but more of this speed of ever new arising of which I am a part, or also, of which I am sole purveyor. Like being on the front end of a run away train in light speed. This me is not apart from the rest of this ever new Universe. Rather we all are at the surface of this moment as on the surface of the sea of all existence, of all time, rising, increasing each instance, expanding. As long as we are alive we can't but surf this wave of time, because we are in the now.

This wonderful being is what Dogen hints at, I believe.

I do not understand this acceleration but think it has to do with the way everything expands/manifests from any and all points and therefore adds to the rush. An explosion begets ten explosions begets hundred explosions etc? Or also, by honing in, by focusing on the tip of the propulsion, the wind in our face becomes highlighted and we feel the speed much more acutely.

Re: The Emergence of Time

According to Quantum Physics though the Big Bang is an anomaly that cannot be placed in time very strangely, and cannot be dated exactly. They said its like a blank space in time, they can't date it for some reason I thought.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong or have more insights on what Quantum Physicists think of this?

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce Wrote:
I believe you're thinking of the Hopis, who do not have a concept of past or future (at least, they do not conceive of them in the same way that we do).

Yeah it was not the Hopis. Oh well, maybe I will remember it. BTW after college I drove around the southwest on a motorcycle looking for Anasazi Indian ruins…Mesa Verde, Canyon de Chelly, etc…the high desert plateaus are amazing!


e wrote:  We appear 'stuck' in time. Using Bjorn's title, I was just trying to point to how the sense of time emerges as succinctly as possible. Rick used a nice metaphor of the still frames of film for memory flashing or pulsing creating the illusion of time. And yes, any sense of Now or Presence presupposes past & future, no matter how present the instant (of time). OK where do we want to go from here?

Bruce responded:
As I was suggesting to Rick, I think it might be more fruitful to inquire into time, possibly opening or expanding our definition of it, than to simply write it off as a trick of perception.  Because it seems that the activity of perception itself appears to require “time” (as any attempt to explain the “emergence” or construction of time in perception appears to presuppose a certain dynamism and vitality of presence/presencing, even while it may reveal a particular order of time as a fiction or an incomplete picture).

OK sure, we can expand and contract the enquiry, I dont mind. But let's see if we can at least agree on a definition of time that seems to cover all the bases. The wiki on time is pretty good. Want to look there first? They start with 2 views of time worth considering. Looks like a Right Quadrant & a Left Quadrant view.


—-

Advait, physicists feel that space/time was collapsed prior to the Big Bang. All the matter being condensed into a super dense black hole. And nothing gets out of a black hole. Not light, space or even time. So it is like Genesis, in the beginning there was nothing. Except there was really nothing i.e. not even a 'beginning' (in time)!


peace & love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

time

“The first component of an absolute relationship to life is our relationship to time and the movement of time.

“Most of us spend our entire lives trapped–trapped and suffocating in a kind of limbo–trapped because, without even knowing it, we are always waiting. And that waiting is an experience of almost unbroken tyranny. We are trapped by the movement of time because we live in a constant state of anticipation–waiting, endlessly waiting, for the future to arrive. We live in this way because we believe that in the future our lives will somehow be better than they are now… .

“An absolute relationship to time is one in which we have stopped waiting.

”If we truly want to be free, simply through the sincere contemplation of what an absolute relationship to time means, we can liberate ourselves from the prison of waiting that we have chosen to live in. You see, in this contemplation, it soon will become clear that there is nothing to wait for. In fact, what will eventually reveal itself is the profound recognition that there is only one moment–and this moment now always is and could only ever be that one moment. Indeed, when we discover this for ourselves, we will know without any doubt that there never has been anything to wait for–not even the experience of recognizing that there was nothing to wait for! When we see this clearly, we simply stop waiting. And when we stop waiting, everything changes.

“An absolute relationship to time is one in which we have stopped waiting absolutely–stopped waiting for anything more to occur in order to fully be.”

Andrew Cohen, from Embracing Heaven & Earth [p.62-4]

Any comments? How would TSK or other traditions view or elaborate on or approach this?

Re: The Emergence of Time

Found it…

timeless tribe

Re: The Emergence of Time

Thanks for the link to that article, e.  Very interesting!  I had not heard of that tribe before.  I'm fascinated by linguistic puzzles and the influence of language on the nature of experience, and have experimented with creating alternative grammars to explore this. 

I think the wiki article provides some good touchstones.  I do not think any of the definitions mentioned (Newtonian, Kantian, or physical) can be taken, in themselves, to be complete or full representations of “time,” but we can look at each as a potentially useful perspective to take (depending on what we want to investigate).  The common views of time appear to be either the Newtonian or Kantian views:  time as the objective “medium” in which events are sequentially ordered and causally related (as space is the objective medium in which objects are situated), or time as an abstract (subjective) index for events (lacking any inherent reality in itself, but serving a cognitive ordering function). 

There certainly is an objective dimension to time, in that independent subjects can objectively confirm and agree upon the order in which events unfold, and can similarly objectively report when an object appears or disappears.  But time also appears to lack a wholly independent objective basis, because the “objective consensus” that independent subjects arrive at appears to be the function of the relative motion and position of those subjects.  This at least appears to undermine the notion that events unfold in a wholly objective, fixed serial order, completely independently of observers. 

Before going further or offering more definitions, I want to ask some questions, if you or anyone else is interested.  In one of Rick's posts, he mentioned Einstein's notion of block time – the idea that all past and future events exist, in an important sense, Now.  That the appearance of change and development is an illusion.  One of my questions is, do you (either you or Rick, or anyone else) think this perspective is compatible with Buddhism?  If all events exist “now,” timelessly, then that appears to be a form of eternalism, which Buddhism eschews.  Would you agree? 

Also, what are your views on the relationship between impermanence and time?

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S.  David, I would like to respond to your post.  I will try to do so later this evening, or definitely this weekend.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Interesting article, e.

Does time arise before object constancy (fulcrum 3) is established? The tribe in the article was described as hunter/gatherer (fulcrum 2), but they may have been fulcrum 3. If they are really fulcrum 2, that might explain why they don't have time or numbers in their language. The Mayans (fulcrum 3) went nuts with time and numbers.

I looked for articles about this, but the ones I found required a subscription:

“The Development of Time Sense–From Birth to Object Constancy”

“The development of time tense–from object constancy to adolescence”


   

Re: The Emergence of Time

David, there’s really not a direct correlation between a cultural groups subsistence strategy, level of technology, and numerical concepts. This is one area where AQAL fails horribly.
That is, if I tell you a groups subsistence strategy, like horticultural you can’t just plug it into AQAL and get other characteristics that line up always.
The Maya in your example, where largely horticultural, using Milpas and only human labor. They are therefore a kind of horticultural group.

Re: The Emergence of Time

It seems to line up for the Mayans pretty well. I've studied them enough to know that they fall into level 3 generally, power Gods, horticultural, a feudal empire of sorts. I don't know how things line up with numerical concepts. That could be a different line. But we can see that the Mayans had all sorts of fun with numbers and time and the Brazillian tribe does not. Can you think of any cultures before fulcrum 3 that use numbers and time? Can you think of any cultures whose subsistence strategy and technology don't line up with their cultural COG? Of course there are many examples of cultures using technology that other groups have manufactured these days, the Brazillian tribe included. There are also probably many groups whose subsistence strategy has linked up with the modern world but whose level in the lower left hasn't changed much, so everything has gotten a little scrambled up these days, but I wouldn't consider that a fault of AQAL as I'm sure Ken's aware of that.

Re: The Emergence of Time

I think we really can't always peg a civilization when the leading scholars of that civilization, for example the Mayans or the Greeks, could be Indigo or even into the Violet range. Therefore thinking on this level their writings very well could have been some of the best preserved. It was common for some of the early wisdom traditions (I imagine the early shamans in the Mayan civilization, etc.) and such as the Druids to have oral traditions so much of their wisdom is lost that would help us determine their general stage.

Re: The Emergence of Time

I am posting the following excerpt from the first TSK book in response to Bjorn's passages by Dogen and his comments about being “propelled” by time, and also in response to David's Cohen quote on stopping waiting and opening more fully to the present.  The passage describes the transition to “second-level time,” which is the second of the three stages of TSK's discussion of time. 

TSK describes coming to a more direct, experiential understanding of 'time' (in quotes to show that this use of the word is nonconventional), as opposed to the more conventional understanding of time as an abstract index or conceptual tool (which is how it tends to manifest in “first-level” terms).  I'm interested in whether others think such an approach is meaningful and fruitful.

“Initially, second-stage experience of ‘time' may show it to be like a ‘flow' or a flashing, dynamic factor. This is because our ordinary knowing makes it conform to our familiar serial progression of events and our sense that there are things that must somehow have been created or brought into being. If we cling to ‘self' and ‘thing' presup­positions in the face of a glimpse of ‘time' as flowing or flashing, it may seem like an autonomous force ‘doing' us or pushing us around. But very soon we may realize that we are imagining victims where there are none – there is only ‘time'.

‘We' can learn to allow brief ‘knowings' which track more of ‘time' and which are broad and impartial enough to take into account both our ‘self', observed objects, and other background items as all being given with ‘time'. It therefore becomes possible for such a ‘knowing' to ‘tap' the dynamism of ‘time'. To the extent that the result of such a momentary insight is again assimilated to the concerns and interpretations of the ego, we can enjoy more mental energy and more physical power as well. This seems like a veritable control of the direction of ordinary time.

Though this emphasis on ‘control' falls far short of real insight, it sums up the observed fact that “things are getting better,” that “things are going more my way.” To understand such trends, consider that the apparent serial order of ordinary time ‘going my way' can at this stage be seen to derive from the flow or flashing of ‘time'-it is a tame summary of ‘time'. In the same way, on the ordi­nary level, ‘objects', persons, and continuous identities generally are seen to be convenient summaries of time sequences. The flow of ordinary time is therefore fulfill­ing or satisfactory just to the extent that the undimin­ishable freedom and variety offered by Great Space and the unconquerable vitality of Great Time are preserved in the perceived outputs of ‘time'. It is a matter of how much a higher ‘knowing', in its enjoyment of the play of Space and Time, is left unobscured. ‘Control' is therefore just the self's way of describing the result of opening to a greater appreciation of ‘time'.   Meditation can also be much more precisely oriented at this stage, and can progress quickly. It can be grounded in greater confidence and expansiveness, due to the deep sense that no state of affairs is irrevocably ‘bad', or a ‘trap'.

As our perspective becomes less rigid and more open, we can develop an appreciation of ‘things' as inspiring sym­bols. The ordinary view of time has the effect of embedding all situations in a linear series so that they gain their sig­nificance from their environment or location between the orienting past and the confining future. Despite the alleged dynamism linking one point in the series to the next, our ordinary ‘knowing'-conforming to the series character-is always weakened by this dependence of the present on the past and by its need to give way to something further. So the net effect is deadening as far as appreciation of the present is concerned. Instead of working with living sym­bols which point the way to new possibilities, we reduce everything to rigid, prosaic items and meanings which only point back and forth to one another.

However, instead of nailing each point down within this familiar past-present-future picture, we can concen­trate on attending to what is immediately ‘present' with­out locating it in a before-after causal nexus. This has, of course, been tried in conventional meditative disciplines that involve concentration on a particular object or noting each event as it transpires. But although past, future, and causal connections can be ‘let go' of in this way, attention to the present remains solidly structured in terms of fixat­ing on the conventionally designated ‘things' comprising the situation. This can be a problem with some types of meditation, which depend on an unwavering (and rather rigid) attention to the ‘things' in ‘the present'.

We should, instead, learn to appreciate the immediate presence of both ‘knowing subject' and ‘known objects' without clinging to the view of them as those things. We can see them as presentations, with ourselves as being part of each presentation. It is then possible for previously hidden dynamics to show themselves within and as the situation. First, all drab items, facts, and trends can become alive, inspiring symbols, as was just indicated. They are no longer seen as produced by – and tied to – a ‘horizontal' temporal series. So they, in their givenness with us, can point in what seems at first like a different, more vertical and liberating direction. They do not then have a specific content or referent (referring along or within the ordinary series). Rather, they signal the begin­ning of an unfolding path of discovery, off the beaten track. The second phase of this path consists in the con­crete presentations or manifestations indicating what is even less prosaic and more dynamic, namely manifest­ing or presenting.

This ‘manifesting' is the first way of appreciating a ‘time' dynamic which presents the situations compris­ing us and our lives. This can be called ‘timing', in defer­ence to thc hold-over of our first-level notions that things happen and must be done by something sequentially. ‘Timing' shows all features of a given presentation to be interrelated, but not in a sense that reinforces the idea of separate items interacting (as for ordinary time).

Every encountered existent or presence can be taken as the object-facet of a presentation. Each presentation is an appreciative embodiment of an active ‘presenting'. Thus, each concrete presentation is a kind of knowl­edge, a stalwart witness-bearer to ‘time's' presenting character. ‘Time's' dynamism may then be appreciated as expressing the open accommodation of Great Space. More precisely, the presentation is itself the appreciation of ‘time' as being allowed by Space and as in turn express­ing Space. No additional act of appreciation is required.

‘Time' at this second stage can be seen to be the essential force that lets moment give way to moment, and the factor which permits items within a situation or moment to have their own identities. The discrete iden­tities of things are ordinarily said to depend on their being interdefined or contrasted with reference to one another. But it would be possible to argue that by ignoring the pri­macy of ‘time', no conventional attempts to account for the identities and ‘thingness' of things in terms of their definitions, interrelations, and nominal interdefinability can fully succeed. Nor can the differences and interrela­tions themselves be considered to obtain without ‘time'.

Earlier it was suggested that entities delineated by the terms of philosophy (or of physical science) may seem difficult to interrelate because both the entities and the terms themselves are only rough summaries or glosses of the more subtle structure of ‘time'. This sug­gestion can now be extended to apply more generally to all the things of our world. All the interconnections observed or required by conventional disciplines depend upon ‘time'.

So, without ‘time' we cannot have the ordinary pres­ences of ‘things'. But, rather paradoxically, an actual appreciation of ‘time' shows that the way in which it pres­ents identities, differences, and interrelations is a direct evocation of ‘space', of ‘no-things', of non-plurality

Some systems of thought suggest that the interrelated­ness of ordinary things-their being relative to one an-other in some respect-shows their unreality as separate entities. This seems to be an unjustified conclusion in any ordinary context, and offers little basis for relating to ordinary appearance in any new way. The same prob­lem arises for some of the investigations conducted by the physical sciences; they work with dynamic inter­dependencies while still leaving us to live in the same world of separate ‘things'. Because such conventionally observed relatedness depends on an ordinarily unseen ‘time', it is not itself really fundamental. Thus, neither familiar observations nor exotic scientific discoveries of interrelatedness (or of a unifying reduction to some base-level ‘stuff') are able to change our perceptions of ‘things'. Such conventional relatedness does not inspire immediate contact with the transcending unity at the heart of reality. For this kind of realization, we need to open more to ‘time'.

The ‘timing' quality can show a profound unity and no-thing-ness. With ‘timing' understood, the fact that there is no independent ‘self' or person as ‘subject' encour­ages an appreciation of openness. The self is shown to be open, a ‘non-self'. Without insight into ‘timing', attempts to show that there is no solid ‘self' or ‘subject' (because the ‘subject' is interdependent with the'object') do not work. Such arguments just show that caution is needed-that the characterization ‘subject' only applies to ‘Real people' in limited respects. The solid reality of people and selves cannot be questioned by logic alone. Thus, an assertion of ‘no-self' or'no-thing-ness' based on the con­ventional interrelatedness of subject and object would only be an issue for metaphysics. It would not affect the self-orientation on a practical level, unless it were to encourage the self's indulgence in the game of self-morti­fication or humility. But if ‘time' is directly understood, then the notion that there even are entities like the ‘self' (which can be rightly or wrongly characterized or surren­dered) is itself transcended.

Time expresses a world in which objects and entities have identities, are independent, interreact as part of their independence, and are distinguishable from mere linguistic characterizations of them (meanings and defi­nitions within ordinary time). But it does so strictly by a special ‘characterizing' (i.e., ‘timing'). It times out its own comprehensive sort of ‘meanings', which are ‘things' in a way that leaves them as ‘nothing'-as completely open.

Once we see that the glue linking moments-and also ‘things' within moments-is ‘time', and that ‘time' shows Great Space, we may also see that ‘time' provides a third sort of link. It is a bridge to other realms, entirely different than our usual one.

All the ‘timed' connections within situations and between them are pervaded with space. Every part of our interlocking world may be discovered to be full of gaps or discontinuities-which allow us to depart from ordinary procedures so that we may enjoy a bit of nonstandard control. And as we further sur­render ordinary construals (‘knowings') and utiliza­tions of these gaps, i.e., as we allow everything to be shown as Space, the discontinuities become more startling. Stated in a ‘doing' model, the expressive­ness of ‘timing' is becoming less conservative and less constrained to adhere to usual patterns. Stated in regard to widening perspectives, more of ‘knowing' is admitted, and this shows more of ‘time' within every frozen and tiny moment of ordinary time.

It is important not to congratulate ourselves when discontinuities and miraculous events occur. They are not to be taken as either achievements or as something to consolidate ‘ourselves' against, thus shutting them out. Either of these approaches, which involve trying to maintain a ‘self' on very shaky ground, is very likely to lead to psychological disorientation-since ‘time' would, as always, work against such consolidation.

Gaps and discontinuities are not ‘the reality' threat­ening or undermining our world-view. They are only a transition view, and are due to the fact that in tem­porarily opening up beyond our familiar environment, we are trying to win free of it. We are implementing a ‘break out' mentality. Due to our conditioning, we are still somewhat blind to what is present, so we see (and seek) only gaps. But we can find that Great Space is much more-and more positive-than such pervading empti­ness or discontinuities.

Surrendering the ordinary, blinding ‘knowing' to wider perspectives is essential, and amounts to feeding everything that is given with ‘time' back into ‘time'. This can be done quite deliberately-sklllfully and vigor­ously feeding ‘time' into ‘time', stimulating and acceler­ating it, getting more resultant energy and again putting that back into ‘time'. All understandings and realizations which we have can be fed back in this manner, rather than holding on to them and taking them as the ‘truth'. (See Chapter Eight, particularly Exercise 22, for further background and implementation on this possibility).

This acceleration process has a tremendous trans­muting and lifting effect. Time lifts ‘knowing' into a totally new type of ‘space' experience. This lifting leaves nothing behind and yet does not lift a ‘self', nor does it go anywhere in any ordinary sense. It is the quintessence of what is called alchemy. It transforms us and others, mind and body, world and worlds.

In the process, just prior to the culmination of this ‘lifting', there is the experience of something that might loosely correspond to what physics calls a ‘singularity', a breakdown of ordinary space-time laws. Happenings cease to follow a standard coherence or ordering prin­ciple. Also, they are not restricted by the conventional dichotomy between the ‘possible' and the ‘impossible'. This kind of experience may gradually be seen to bear on all regular or law-like happenings. All ordinary appear­ance and apparently ‘law-like' arising of circumstances is also seen as involving ‘singularities'.

The overturning of the usual views of the arising of appearance presages the general and fundamental deem­phasis on ‘thing” or appearances-which always stand in need of an explanation, a source or doer. Time ceases to be seen as unfolding distributively, from one thing to the next. Instead, it penetrates directly through all meanings and partitions to show Great Space in a perfect, timeless encounter-timeless in the sense of being unconditioned and without ordinary duration.

We have gone from ordinary cause-effect succession, point by point

to an appreciation of ‘timing' which is still construed in conformity with the ‘succession' picture:

That is, we can see ‘timing' as expressing everything within the series, and as permitting the conventionally accepted passage from one situation (point) to the next. We may then go on to relate to ‘timing' as being a more truly higher-level factor, timing out our situations from ‘above' and permit­ting some chance to ‘return':

The small size of the arrows pointing ‘up' is an indication of transcendence still being seen as only a slight, rather exceptional possibility compared to the ‘regular', ‘down' direction. The solid line represents the ‘time' continuum available to us (in contrast to the isolated points of ordinary time).

As our conviction in a standard, spread-out realm ‘here below' weakens, we may let go of the ‘outside-stander' picture of ‘the external world'. Instead, we may see all serial ‘timing' to be occurring in the same place, rather than establishing an extended ‘world out there'. That is, all going from place to place, experience to expe­rience, which validates the picture of a spread out world, actually occurs as a succession of 'timed out' experiences in the same ‘spot':

(See exercise 23 for experiential insight into this phenom­enon.)

As ‘upward' lifting and opening become more pro­nounced, this insight into ‘non-going' results in a collapse of ‘here' and the here-there, infinite-above-limited-below view. It becomes a more encompassing, open-ended ‘here'. Serial one-by-one replacement of experiences within ‘here' is not necessary, because ‘here' can embrace them all at once. Along the way, ‘timed out' succession, and ‘timed out' togetherness within each point,

become invitations to transcendence:

The circles represent expanded versions of the points desig­nating individual situations. The double arrow shows that ‘time' links the various facets of each individual situation.

In diagram B the arrows branching off in new directions show that once we see our structured situations as being expressed by ‘time', that same ‘time' is also a path to new, more open dis­coveries. These discoveries are actually not found elsewhere or outside the initial series, but are ‘within' it. So, eventually these beckoning possibilities can be integrated back into the appear­ance of the ordinary staid series again, with this series then being seen in a very ‘ordinary' but also a very new light.

Thus, the overall procedure consists in initially adopt­ing a somewhat more spacious view, a kind of disinter­ested attention that encompasses both self and object and is unimpressed by ordinary temporal connections. This permits more ‘timing' to be observed, which then shows still more ‘space'. Such ‘space' in turn allows even more of ‘time's' dynamism to be enjoyed, because it allows ‘knowing' to get a broader perspective on subtle hold-outs (‘things' and standard positions) and to see its way clear to let them be ‘time'. Feeding ‘time' into ‘time' depends on the mounting reciprocity and intimacy with which Great Space and Time explore and celebrate one another.” 

~ Tarthang Tulku, Time, Space, and Knowledge, pp. 142-153

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce, I really love that stuff. I need to read it more carefully, but I really love it. It transmits.

Re: The Emergence of Time

David: “It seems to line up for the Mayans pretty well. I’ve studied them enough to know that they fall into level 3 generally, power Gods, horticultural, a feudal empire of sorts. I don’t know how things line up with numerical concepts. That could be a different line. But we can see that the Mayans had all sorts of fun with numbers and time and the Brazillian tribe does not. Can you think of any cultures before fulcrum 3 that use numbers and time?”

Horticulture and empire don’t equate in AQAL. Look up horticulture vs. agriculture.
Simply stated, we have to look at the values and structures that, on the one hand, are looking into these “others”, and on the other hand, are actually changing over time. There was a very influencial anthropologist in the 30’s thru the 50’s, named Leslie White, who felt that after studying dozens of cultural groups, that cultural evolution could be boiled down to the increasing efficiency of a group’s exploitation of their environment via technology. It seemed, at that time, that all group’s move through time in this way. AQAL is very invested in this idea as well. This was called unilinear cultural evolution. Within AQAL there is the idea that all the quadrants move up in a quasi unified way, and that technological or subsistence strategy development leads the way. This is due, I think, more to the visible nature of technological advancement, more than anything.
This idea is vague and really ignores the diversity of individual cultures.
Here I have to make the distinction between what I think KW is saying, and how his work is actually used by the people in this forum.
The way AQAL is actually said to work, from KW’s more recent work, is so complex, that it itself has become multi-linear, a la Julian Steward, who wrote a book that is the foundation of modern cultural ecology. The problem is that this new model isn’t predictive. According to the new AQAL model, or the multi-linear culture core of Steward, which has been improved upon over the last 50 years, is that in order to understand a group’s cultural core, which is a group’s most direct patterns of exploitation and distribution, one must actually go to the place they want to write about. If they want to know how it have changed over a period of 5 years, you have to go back 5 years later.
Cultures are diverse and dynamic and environments are diverse and dynamic. The links between the two must be understood, and due to the fact that both operate in locales that are unique to a space and time, it is disingenuous to think otherwise.
You simply cannot plot a point of a chart and predict that a group will steadily evolve in some predetermined pattern.
I think that the AQAL map today accounts for this, and I think that KW understands this well, and has said so in interviews in anthropological journals, but that most of the people that follow Integral theories, simply don’t have the patience for this reality.

There is this desire to look around the world with incomplete and cursory data and think to ourselves, “well this group here has this type of subsistence strategy, so they must be at this fulcrum, and therefore this and that, etc…”
To an anthropologist this is akin to a modern psychologist taking part in a Freudian mind experiment of psychoanalyzing historical figures. You having a Master’s in psychology, I think, can understand this better than most.

At the end of the day all a culture and a society are are individuals interacting and having relationships day to day. When we look upon people with the lens of AQAL on a very distant scale, we loose more in true understanding than we gain in the destruction of confusion. That is, we trade wisdom and understanding for a smaller kind of knowledge.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bjorn: “such that “time (ji(g)) itself is already none other than all  beings (u(h));  beings  are none other than time.””

I have a conceptual idea of what this may mean, but what do you think it means? It seems rather nonsensical in a way.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Holden asked:  I have a conceptual idea of what this may mean, but what do you think it means? It seems rather nonsensical in a way.

I am not familiar enough with Dogen to be certain what he means, but I believe his view is similar to the one expressed by Tarthang Tulku.  (One reason I think so, beyond the texts Bjorn has shared, is that I recently went to a meditation and discussion session with Zen teacher, Tenryu Paul Rosenblum Roshi [a student of Shunryu Suzuki and the dharma successor of Zentatsu Richard Baker Roshi], and he spoke in terms that were quite resonant with me as a TSK practitioner.)  He talked about his intimate encounter with a particular cat that day as “leaning into the time of the cat,” where (I believe) the time of the cat is its dynamic presencing, its appearing.  The beingtime of the cat, unique and yet inseparable from the beingtime of all things. 

In TSK, and I believe in Dogen's Zen teachings, time is not just an abstract conceptual index or even a commodity (something we can save or waste) – it is the creativity and vitality of the manifesting of all appearance; it is inseparable from experience; it is the dynamism of the Kosmos, of our bodies and minds.  This is not a metaphysical postulate, but something that can be encountered through practice.

From one perspective, the “time of the cat” can be understood as that “lineage” of time that is expressing itself in the embodiment of this particular cat – the whole thrust of the history in and through the Kosmos that has unfolded, here and now, in and as this particular sentient being.  From another perspective, you can see the cat as a dynamic expression of unbounded wholeness, beyond cause and effect or any particular temporal series.  As Tarthang Tulku says, “‘Time' at the second stage can be seen to be the essential force that lets moment give way to moment, and the factor which permits items within a situation or moment to have their own identities… Without ‘time' we cannot have the ordinary presences of ‘things'. But, rather paradoxically, an actual appreciation of ‘time' [in its depth] shows that the way in which it presents identities, differences, and interrelations is a direct evocation of ‘space', of ‘no-things', of non-plurality.”

I'm not sure if this is helpful or not.  TSK suggests, not only that we are time, but that we are also space and knowledge:  beings are the intimate interplay of time-space-knowledge.  Relate this to Wilber's comment below:

“Since space is often taken as ontological and time epistemological, then in third-person terms this amounts to saying that space and time are not separate but rather are a spacetime continuum. Fleshing that out with the AQAL metatheory, we say that the exteriors of spacetime appear topographically as chains of mass-energy interlinked in various networks and systems, while interiors appear as feelings and awareness interlinked in various cascades of intimacy. But they all arise together as perspective-occasions of the self-reflective Kosmos.”

This is a description of the “relative” side of things.  TSK makes similar claims, but it points in and through this relative display of spacetime to Great Time, Great Space, and Great Knowledge – the boundless energy, openness, and clarity of Buddhanature.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick said: “Horticulture and empire don't equate in AQAL. Look up horticulture vs. agriculture.”
 
I think we are looking at different charts. The chart given in a Theory of Everything (figure 3-1, page 43) has horticulture covering fulcrum 3 a little bit. In fact in that chart each subsistence strategy/level of techonology spans at least 2 fulcrums. If you don't have the book, click here, then type “figure 3-1” into the search box, and then click on page 43 when it comes up.
 

 Rick said: “There was a very influencial anthropologist in the 30's thru the 50's, named Leslie White, who felt that after studying dozens of cultural groups, that cultural evolution could be boiled down to the increasing efficiency of a group's exploitation of their environment via technology.”

That's very interesting, and important I'm sure, but perhaps a little reductive? It seems to focus on the lower-right-hand quadrant and call that the most important thing. What about the cultural interior?

Rick said: “Within AQAL there is the idea that all the quadrants move up in a quasi unified way, and that technological or subsistence strategy development leads the way.”

I think Ken says that all those technologies and strategies begin with an idea in the upper left.

Rick said: “This idea is vague and really ignores the diversity of individual cultures… .   In order to understand a group's cultural core, which is a group's most direct patterns of exploitation and distribution, one must actually go to the place they want to write about.”

I think Ken would prefer you call it a ” broad orienting generalization” rather than “vague.”  :)

But I think you bring up good points here. The diversity and details in individual cultures are very important, and you have to go to a place and live with the people to really understand them deeply.
 

Rick said: “You simply cannot plot a point of a chart and predict that a group will steadily evolve in some predetermined pattern.”

We can do that with individuals up to a certain point, can't we? Why not cultures?

Ken has written about studies that support the idea of unfolding, global stages. Here are a few excerpts from this page:
 

      “A major objection might be that stage conceptions are oppressive, marginalizing, patriarchal, sexist, racist, and Eurocentric, and have little cross-cultural research supporting them. These charges have especially been leveled against two of the green meme's whipping boys, Piaget and Kohlberg… . 

   “Start with Piaget. After almost three decades of intense cross-cultural research, the evidence is considerable: Piaget's stages up to formal operational are universal and cross-cultural. As only one example, Lives Across Cultures: Cross-cultural Human Development is a highly respected textbook written from an openly liberal perspective (which is often suspicious of 'universal' stages). The authors (Harry Gardiner, Jay Mutter, and Corinne Kosmitzki) carefully review the evidence for Piaget's stages of sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. They found that cultural settings sometimes alter the rate of development, or an emphasis on certain aspects of the stages–but not the stages themselves or their cross-cultural validity… .

“The same is true for Kohlberg. Although his moral stages do not cover all facets of morality, they have proven cross-culturally sound for the ground they cover. 'Similar findings have emerged from studies in Mexico, the Bahamas, Taiwan, Indonesia, Turkey, Honduras, India, Nigeria, and Kenya… .  So it seems that Kohlberg's levels and stages of moral reasoning are “universal” structures … [and] Kohlberg's morals stages do seem to represent an invariant sequence.' (D. Shaffer, Social and Personality Development, 1994, 417-18.)”
 
He touches on it on page 46 in Integral Psychology and probably other places as well.

I really appreciate it when you bring in anthropology, Rick. It's one of my favorite subjects.

Re: The Emergence of Time

I don't want to hijack Bjorn's thread, so I'm gonna carry over this conversation to the evolution debate.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce wrote:
Thanks for the link to that article, e. Very interesting! I had not heard of that tribe before. I'm fascinated by linguistic puzzles and the influence of language on the nature of experience, and have experimented with creating alternative grammars to explore this.

De nada. Yes it is fascinating, the structure of language
which helps to construct our views of experience.



I think the wiki article provides some good touchstones. I do not think any of the definitions mentioned (Newtonian, Kantian, or physical) can be taken, in themselves, to be complete or full representations of “time,” but we can look at each as a potentially useful perspective to take (depending on what we want to investigate). The common views of time appear to be either the Newtonian or Kantian views: time as the objective “medium” in which events are sequentially ordered and causally related (as space is the objective medium in which objects are situated), or time as an abstract (subjective) index for events (lacking any inherent reality in itself, but serving a cognitive ordering function).

There certainly is an objective dimension to time, in that independent subjects can objectively confirm and agree upon the order in which events unfold, and can similarly objectively report when an object appears or disappears. But time also appears to lack a wholly independent objective basis, because the “objective consensus” that independent subjects arrive at appears to be the function of the relative motion and position of those subjects. This at least appears to undermine the notion that events unfold in a wholly objective, fixed serial order, completely independently of observers.

Yes, quite a conundrum. Are there bridging understandings to help to dovetail the subjective & objective sense of time?



Before going further or offering more definitions, I want to ask some questions, if you or anyone else is interested. In one of Rick's posts, he mentioned Einstein's notion of block time - the idea that all past and future events exist, in an important sense, Now. That the appearance of change and development is an illusion.

Maybe for now we can tentatively say it is illusory and not a full fledged illusion. My understanding of block time is that of Minkowski space. Minkowski was the first person to treat time spatially, as an actual spatial dimension, within physics and mathematics. This allowed for a geometric 4 dimensional representation of spacetime (a block). My understanding is that all objective time is not Now, but that we can conceive of objective time as 'existing' in this representational block. This leads to understanding our perception of motion in space as illusory. That is, if we take a slice of the block (an instant), we see an objects position as stationary. For every slice of the block, objects are not moving. Rick alluded to this with the film analogy. But in the block, nothing is ever moving. An objects movement is just static points in the manifold of spacetime that creates a line in the axis of time. This leads to the question of why do we perceive motion and why don't we intuit the block and perceive an actual time line?

One of my questions is, do you (either you or Rick, or anyone else) think this perspective is compatible with Buddhism? If all events exist “now,” timelessly, then that appears to be a form of eternalism, which Buddhism eschews. Would you agree?

Well I don't see block time as all existing 'Now' as 'Now' is just an instance of spacetime and not the 'whole' manifold of it.



Also, what are your views on the relationship between impermanence and time?

Time is motion, change. Either as objects moving, fixed objects changing state or subjective change of states. So impermanence is time i.e. samsara. To break the cycle of time (dependent origination) is to see this change stop, dependent origination ceases (stops) or the cycle is broken at a link.

peace & love,

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

e: “This leads to the question of why do we perceive motion and why don't we intuit the block and perceive an actual time line?”

An interesting way the eye works, is that the chemical reactions that allow nerve impulses to be fired to the brain and formed into actual vision aren't constant. That is there are constant blind spots in our vision due to the refractory time needed for each chemical reaction, but our brain fills in these visionless gaps with a sense of motion, or continuation.
This is just one of the reasons why we shouldn't deny what we know to be true via scientific fact, and what we think to be true from what we see.
The concept of time isn't really needed, I think. If we think of what is now simply being based upon conditons, and those conditions leading to other conditions, then there is no continuation of anything we could conceive of as time. That is, what is now seems similar to what once was, only because what once was helped to bring about what is now. But, what is now, isn't what was before. Time requires us to have a past and a future. It is a way to conceive of things persisting through time longer than they do. It is what we have to have to have a sense of an I.
But, what is now is not what was then, it is now. It may be similar, but it isn't the same, as you aren't the same from one moment to the next. If there are only new things and situations, then where is this “time” that they exist in?
Simply stated the Now exists only now. It doesn't exist then. Time is only a concept needed to think that anything persists longer than a moment. Reality is too dynamic for anything to persist longer than a moment. That moment doesn't allow for time.
Motion is like this. Something cannot start to move, because once it is moving it isn't stationary. Something cannot be both stationary and moving at once, and therefore something cannot begin to move. Once it is moving it is something else and not the same thing that was once stationary.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick, I believe I understand what you are getting at in your post, but I have issues with the way you are actually expressing your points.  Although you are saying we can do without the concept of time altogether, it seems your description is actually still drenched in “time” – even though you are denying continuity of the identity of particular objects over time, you are speaking in terms of discrete moments, processes, dynamism, etc, all of which can be seen as “time” (perhaps understood on a different level, or from a different perspective.) 

I think TSK's way of expressing this is more coherent.  I have not received any response from you with regard to the TSK material I've shared here, so I don't know if it's of any interest to you, but I hope you will take the time to read the following, since it relates directly to what I believe you are getting at (discontinuity).  It also bears on Wilber's evocation of a bottomless universe of perspectives.  The following passage is from the first TSK book and deals with something called the “read-out principle.”

“Identities and meanings all depend on a referring process, a subtle tendency to ground something by plac­ing it in a wider or more general context. Within this framework, we are able to gather evidence and to have encounters which support our references and justify our belief in the existents to which they refer.

If, on the other hand, we appreciate ‘time' more, then all things and situations are seen as ‘timed out'. When seen in this way, our encounters with things challenge, rather than presuppose, their general, stable identities and their founding background. ‘Referring' no longer distracts us by referring outward or to anything else. Evidence for ‘things' is not convincing evidence.

An example (within our conventional realm) of this kind of challenge is found in the saying that one can­not bathe in the same river twice. The stable identity ‘the river' is called into question by remembering that everything changes with time. Although this example is based on features of ordinary time, it has a parallel in the second level appreciation of ‘time': Seen as given by ‘time', each situation is, at least poten­tially, through its connection to Great Time, infinite or all-embracing. But, the conventional content of the situation (the ‘meanings' given by ‘time' as forming a certain observed and existentially charged situation) does not in any essential way relate to that of any other situation or condition.

We can call such situations – when seen in this way – 'read-outs' of ‘time'. The term ‘read-out' is a reminder that particular appearances are the informing, communicative outputs by ‘time' of a particular focal setting or ‘space'. That is, a certain sort of ‘knowing' is used, and ‘time' reads out the result of such an attention being in force. We can restate the second-level principle just mentioned, in terms of ‘read-outs':

No ‘read-out' establishes anything about the nature of other ‘read-outs', nor does it derive support for its own status through such a relation to other ‘read-outs' (‘out­side-standers').

The simplest part of what is meant here has to do with the directedness of our experience. Presentations or things that are seen or considered as elsewhere, out­side, or up ahead, are not in fact ‘elsewhere'. Rather, they are strictly with us within the ‘read-out' (which poses them as being elsewhere).

In Exercise 25, there is a rough approximation of the ‘read-out' phenomenon with the practice of seeing everything that comes up as being ‘you'. The ‘read-out' principle is more subtle, however, because it does not even leave the self or its location untouched by a re-evaluation of what they are and how they come about.

Explained in terms of a temporal series (such as the A, B, C, D, of the zigzag diagram), and seeing each point as a ‘timed out' ‘read-out', then:

No point determines or relates to the state of affairs constituting the ‘temporal outside-stander' of the next point.

We can go further: no point establishes that there will even be a next point. And still further, in regard to ‘by-standers': no point establishes itself as a point or as having ever been.

This is because no founding presuppositions regard­ing the nature of what time ‘reads out' are external to or more fundamental than the particular ‘read-out' itself. The ‘timed out' message of there being a point of a certain sort does not require ‘points' (or ‘pointness') as a given. The message is completely integral and self-contained, and it neither assumes nor establishes anything about fundamental entities, structures, or pre­suppositions in any general way. If we track ‘time' very sensitively and see its presentations in this light, it is possible to receive this kind of insight.

As an example, suppose someone is drinking tea. He says, “Ah, it's good.” Then he hands the cup to you. You drink, and say, “Ah, it's good.” But from the read-out level of insight, the drink is not the same in these two – apparently directly connected – cases. This could also be said for the other features which are supposedly constant in this tea-drinking. This does not mean the tea will be found (according to first level evidence) to have different physical properties, or that it has deterio­rated, ‘changed through time'. Rather, the idea is that from a second level view there is no ‘the tea'. There are only presentations within various read-outs which all carry the conviction of being ‘tea' and whose sameness is not an intrinsic and continuous property but a con­vincing message (which includes a convinced ‘you').

… The same is not the same. Sameness is a matter of conviction within a read-out. Unbrokenness is not, beyond all question, unbroken. It is just a message that things are or have been a certain way. Even the iden­tity of ‘this-ness' or ‘me-ness' within a given moment (say, ‘the present') bears a kind of self-challenging char­acter when seen as given by ‘time'. This is a subtle way in which ‘space' shines through (and along with) the obscuring tangle of ‘things'.

Read-outs, then, are completely self-contained. That is, all the factors which the content of a read-out declares to be essential for the experience within the read-out, or essential background for such experience, are equally given within the read-out. If there is the appearance of persons, information-processing capacity, physical and psychological structures, basic world order and contain­ing space, semantic background for propositions (and for referrings and referents), then they appear (or are presup­posed), in such a way that they are all given together within the particular read-out.

No factor of experience – whether subject, object, sense organ, sense datum, position, or basic fact of occurring – is more fundamental than (or prior to) the read-out wherein it takes on significance. Any metaphysical and theo­logical entities considered (in a read-out) to be beyond, above, or prior to all considerations are also part of that read-out's logic. If we carefully examine our experience, we will find this to be the case.

Seen in this way, all existence and experience is like an apparition, a surface with no substantial core, no dimensions to it, no wider and founding environment. This is because a series of presentations, as in an inves­tigation of deeper and deeper layers of ‘the body', can no longer be taken as truly presentations of ‘the same thing'. Time can be read to disclose all manner of physical, psy­chological, and other founding structures without really getting to any bottom of appearance or of particular ‘things'. ‘Things' – with their surfaces, depths, massive­ness, and other qualities – are only serial streams of sheer surface appearance (of characteristic sorts).

This phantasmagorical character is, of course, itself only a part of an unusually incisive read-out. It has no ultimate validity, no general applicability to ‘the way things are'. It is, however, incisive because it is an approximation of Great Time; it is the beginning of a process in which even the read-out insight itself can be ‘seen through'. This amounts to saying that ‘read-outs' are only transitional insights, and transitional in such a way as to not guarantee there being an insight which is more true, and not transitional.

Read-outs of lower time undermine the ordinary view completely, without thereby establishing the existence of a real (and mistaken) ordinary view, a real transitional lower time view, or a real contrasting and independent Great Time. No read-out establishes anything beyond itself. But this is not a proof of individual read-outs as being iso­lated from each other or from the rest of reality, because no read-out ultimately establishes itself, its own isolated position, or isolating boundaries.

The read-out law does not trap us because there is no ‘us' to be trapped at the level where the law applies, and no world-order ‘out there' to be cut off from. The read-out law does not inhibit contact with apparent ‘outside-standers' borne by ‘time'. It just discourages approaching them as ‘outside-standers'.

We can have immediate encounters with what are apparently the same things, seen or expected from a dis­tance. We can walk over to ‘them' and touch them. But the read-out law says that they are not the same and that the way we get to them is not quite as it seems. We do not actually cross distance to come up to them. The way to open up to (and make contact with) other points does not depend on the read-out's apparent establishing of an ‘out there' as related to a ‘here'. Moreover, such contact is actually facilitated (as in the cases of telepathy, clair­voyance, precognition, etc.) to the extent that we are not totally seduced by such conventional expectations and by such aspects of a read-out's content.

The issues which have just been presented amount to a challenging of what ordinarily seems unchallengeable. On the other hand, the challenge is not itself grounded on something else being claimed to be more real or true.

Such a methodology would ordinarily seem impossible. Even those who have considered the possibility of calling into doubt the underlying assumptions of our reality have attempted to do so by appeal to some unchallengeable touchstone. Sometimes it has even been concluded that an all-out attack on ordinary presuppositions actually helps to establish them (by exposing those fundaments or axi­oms of knowledge which simply cannot be consistently doubted). For example, against the doubt of our personal existence, it has been argued that our very ability to consider such a doubt must itself constitute proof of our existence. But, given the read-out insight, we can say that the appearance – for and with us – of our realm does not prove that there is ordinary space or time for it to occur in, that it has ‘occurred' at all.

‘To occur' or ‘to happen' is often expressed by the phrase ‘to take place,' and this common conviction in the taking of a place is something we can reconsider. If we were to say that happening is an illusion, it could then be said that there must be time for the illusion to occur in and someone or something to be deluded. It could there­fore be concluded that there must be a sort of happening. But the challenge posed by the read-out insight does not amount to claiming that everything is an illusion. There is no ‘place', even for an ‘illusion'.

Though it is difficult to find a reason for doubting fundamental features of our realm, such a reason can be found in the insight of the second level ‘time'. Once the basis for doubt is available, no aspect of the challenged order – such as the self, space, elapsed time, or exis­tence –  can stand as being beyond question.

The way to find certainty is neither through ‘clear and distinct ideas' (which are still just ordinary knowledge) or through leaving our reality unquestioned. Rather, we must go through the second stage, where everything can be suddenly left open to question, and go on to the unfolding of Great Knowledge.

Great Knowledge truly removes all doubts and uncer­tainties. But it does not know ‘the truth'. It does not limit reality in that way. However, it is accurate and well-informed of what is going on.

Throughout all the play of Space and Time, Great Knowledge is fully appreciative, and free from confu­sions and mistaken attributions of values. It knows everything as being open, as non-created non-being. But given such an open play it can distinguish perfectly – according to the evaluations cherished within a par­ticular realm – between illusion and ‘reality', between one thing and another, between ‘existence' and ‘mere appearance', value and trivia.

The unshakable clarity of Great Knowledge comes only after we see that the inflexible awareness and claims to reality of a particular realm of experience are actually a play of ‘time', and not an absolute. This requirement and challenging character are natural pro­cesses which are intrinsic to the structure of the path (Time) to Great Knowledge.

It is therefore important, both for accuracy within our realm and also in regard to appreciating the infinity of Space and Time, to continually examine the truths and evidence we encounter. And we have to be care­ful not to prematurely cease this investigation. This is especially important for religious and meditative aspi­rants.

Sometimes incomplete experience of the read-out insight leads meditators to think that ‘everything is just illusion', only ‘experience', ‘mind', or ‘subjective'. But that is stopping too soon. There is no solid, unchallengeable nature to any of these foundations either, if ‘time' is appreciated with respect to them. There is also no ‘every­thing' to be ‘just experience'.

More generally, the second stage of time includes a limitless range of possible breakthroughs. Most reli­gious visions and awakenings throughout history have fallen into this category of experience. The structure of ordinary time is opened by one means or another, and further openness and fulfillment of Space and Time is discovered. But it is usually still structured somewhat in terms of a particular approach, past conditioning, and conceptual categories.

…There is an integrity, certainty, and infinity that is not merely relative. But it is found by working through the subtle ‘read-out' level of second stage experience. This process is necessary, for it helps us to transcend meanings, speculations, and visions-even those which are ‘timed out'. For, we can learn to see even apparently transcendent visions as being precisely seductive mes­sages which present themselves as being ‘transcendent', as ‘beyond meanings', or as ‘insights into relativity'.

It is fairly easy to find the way into the unusual experiences that the second stage of ‘time' offers. It is more difficult, however, to go quickly on, past this stage-with all its visions and realizations-to the third stage of fulfillment. On the second level, where the visions gain their meaning, they can be a subtle trap; they may cause stagnation or infatuation. Such visions have a tendency to prevent full resolution and at-one-ment because of this difficulty in going beyond them. In working only with the content of the visions, with­out understanding the ‘time' that is at work in these entrancing experiences, opening to the third stage may be a haphazard affair, seldom attained. Second stage visions have the potential to go on forever if ‘time' and the self-challenging read-out law is not understood.”  (Tarthang Tulku, Time, Space, and Knowledge, pp. 194-204)

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bjorn: “such that “time (ji(g)) itself is already none other than all  beings (u(h));  beings  are none other than time.””

Rick: I have a conceptual idea of what this may mean, but what do you think it means? It seems rather nonsensical in a way.

At first, second and third glance it is totally incomprehensable. That's why I couldn't stay away from Dogen. After all, he is not the founder of the Soto lineage, the largest of the Zen schools in Japan, for nothing. Always when the most famous teachers speaks incomprehensable I sit up and pay attention because I know I'm touching the Void. They are stretching me and my understanding to the limit. But I have to know, I want to understand. It is of outmost importance to me. I bought all three volumes of Shobogenzo and read them with passion, grasping for meaning. I based my inquiry on my fundamental insights and revelations into the nature of being to graple with it. Insights follows probing. Dig deep and if lucky(?) we strike gold.

Dogen is always referring to an experimental understanding, to an experimental insight into the nature of Time. This demands a push.

I can not taste it for you Rick, but I can only scream my head of saying try it and you'll like it. It is profound and liberating teaching that are REVELATORY BASED. Then and only then can we, and should we, use our discriminatory mind. Push for understanding with our mind in order to trancend mind, and see the Unity of Time and Space. Time does not happen “in” space! Time IS space!

Huang Po says in Blofelds translation (p.116):

“Sword DOES destroy sword - they destroy eachother - and no sword remains for you to grasp. Knowledge DOES destroy knowledge - this knowledge invalidates that knowledge - and then no knowledge remains for you to grasp. It is as though mother and son perished together.”

So in my experience,
“…beings are none other than time.”
means, is, just that, -we ourselves are the very expression of time itself, throughout eternity.
Time is my very fabric, of which I am voven. Time is the very expression of everything, all the time. It is dynamic and ever new. Like Jesus says; I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I was there in the beginning with my father. I am before Abraham was. See, I make all things new.

This is our normal everyday experience, touching the Void.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi Bjorn,

I have to admit I found what you posted of Dogen quite difficult to get my head around, too — too much use of the word/term “Uji”, without it being clearly defined what it means …. or maybe more to the point, what it can mean. But I really want to thank you for posting it!! – and for your impassioned response to Rick's ”I have a conceptual idea of what this may mean, but what do you think it means? It seems rather nonsensical in a way. ”

I'd already researched a couple of other translations of the text, precisely because I just needed to know more of what Dogen's communicating, before I read your response to Rick …. so I fully resonate with what you're saying here:

”Always when the most famous teachers speaks incomprehensable I sit up and pay attention because I know I'm touching the Void. They are stretching me and my understanding to the limit. But I have to know, I want to understand. It is of outmost importance to me.”

What I found a lot easier to read and 'grok' was this rendering of “Uji : The Time-Being” by Eihei Dogen Zenji, translated by Dan Welch and Kazuaki Tanahashi. I'd have quite liked to have copied the whole of it, but it is copyrighted. I'm not sure of the niceties of copyright, so I hope it's ok to quote part of it, in the hope of whetting others' appetite sufficiently for them to follow the link and read it all. Here are sections 9 - 11:

(9) Although the views of an ordinary person and the causes and conditions of
those views are what the ordinary person sees, they are not necessarily the
ordinary person's truth. The truth merely manifests itself for the time
being as an ordinary person. Because you think your time or your being is
not truth, you believe that the sixteen-foot golden body* is not you.
However, your attempts to escape from being the sixteen-foot golden body
are nothing but bits and pieces of the time-being. Those who have not yet
confirmed this should look into it deeply. The hours of Horse and Sheep,
which are arrayed in the world now, are actualized by ascendings and
descendings of the time-being at each moment. The rat is time, the tiger is
time, sentient beings are time, buddhas are time.

(10) At this time you enlighten the entire world with three heads and eight arms,
you enlighten the entire world with the sixteen-foot golden body. To fully
actualize the entire world with the entire world is called thorough practice.
To fully actualize the golden body - to arouse the way-seeking mind,
practice, attain enlightenment, and enter nirvana - is nothing but being, is
nothing but time.

(11) Just actualize all time as all being; there is nothing extra. A so-called
“extra being” is thoroughly an extra being. Thus, the time-being
half-actualized is half of the time-being completely actualized, and a
moment that seems to be missed is also completely being. In the same way,
even the moment before or after the moment that appears to be missed is also complete-in-itself the time-being. Vigorously abiding in each moment is the
time-being. Do not mistakenly confuse it as nonbeing. Do not forcefully
assert it as being.

However, these footnotes make no claim to being a commentary or even trying to explain what Dōgen might be saying. They are focused on translation issues, along with a few historical notes.

Our first problem is how to translate有時/uji/exist-time, the name of the fascicle, which turns out to be a huge challenge in itself. In addition to serving as the title, this word stands at the beginning of each line of the introductory poem, and occurs throughout the essay, by itself and combined with other terms. Dōgen presumably expects the first reaction of the reader on seeing this title to be to interpret the term with its everyday meaning “sometimes”. But as usual Dōgen is playing with the reader, challenging him to find the remaining two or three or halfdozen parsings and nuances. According to standard semantic rules for forming Chinese compounds, 有/yuu/exist and 時/ji/time could be easily parsed as any or all of “the time which exists”, “the time when something exists”, “the time which is existence”, or “the time for existence”.”

Re: The Emergence of Time

e wrote:  Are there bridging understandings to help to dovetail the subjective & objective sense of time?

That's one of the philosophical biggies, ain't it?  Paul Davies, author of About Time, writes in the conclusion of his book that the gap between the inert, objective time of physics and the more open, subjective time of our common (and deeply entrenched) patterns of experience is a worrying one.  He remarks that it may, indeed, turn out that time is altogether an illusion, as some physicists contend; but he says he currently sides with the handful of theorists and philosophers who see in this gap an indication that the physical picture is still incomplete – that important dimensions of time have not yet been accounted for, and that the science of the 21st Century will, in part, involve a deeper inquiry into this mystery.

Although I do not regard it as the be-all and end-all in these matters, I find the TSK approach helpful in this regard, in that it presents a vision which does integrate subjective and objective dimensions of space and time. 

e wrote:  Maybe for now we can tentatively say it is illusory and not a full fledged illusion. My understanding of block time is that of Minkowski space. Minkowski was the first person to treat time spatially, as an actual spatial dimension, within physics and mathematics. This allowed for a geometric 4 dimensional representation of spacetime (a block). My understanding is that all objective time is not Now, but that we can conceive of objective time as 'existing' in this representational block. This leads to understanding our perception of motion in space as illusory. That is, if we take a slice of the block (an instant), we see an objects position as stationary. For every slice of the block, objects are not moving. Rick alluded to this with the film analogy. But in the block, nothing is ever moving. An objects movement is just static points in the manifold of spacetime that creates a line in the axis of time. This leads to the question of why do we perceive motion and why don't we intuit the block and perceive an actual time line?

That is a good question, and I don't think physics has the answer yet.  Einstein suggested that the answer may lie outside of physics.  When I said that all time exists “in an important sense, Now,” I meant that in the general sense implied by the block time model:  that past, present, and future “already exist” in block time, that nothing new really happens.  This is, obviously, a deterministic view, and I think it's important to note that not all physicists agree with it – particularly those who take quantum indeterminacy seriously.

I think it's really important to consider this question in light of AQAL theory.  Wilber's model appears to be an open one:  there really is a meaningful “not yet” in his vision of the Kosmos; real novelty is possible; the future isn't deterministically fixed, but is in a process of creative unfolding; will, intention, and consciousness play a role in what will be actualized out of the frothy edges of our current perspectives.  Contrary to more deterministic, static views, and perhaps contrary to the Buddhist model as well, the Kosmos is actually growing and developing, and this growth is free and truly meaningful (impacting even the scope and the nature of enlightenment).  He acknowledges the always-already of buddhamind, the one taste of enlightened awareness, and yet emphasizes the “openness” of the future in a way that sets it apart (it seems to me) from both Einsteinian block time and mystical views which treat time as an error, an illusion.

What do you think?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

4

Know that in this way there are myriads of forms and hundreds of grasses
throughout the entire earth, and yet each grass and each form itself is the
entire earth. The study of this is the beginning of practice.
When you are at this place, there is just one grass, there is just one
form; there is understanding of form and no-understanding of form; there is
understanding of grass and no-understanding of grass. Since there is nothing
but just this moment, the time-being is all the time there is. Grass-being,
form-being are both time.
Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any
being or any world is left out of the present moment.

Whatever we touch upon, we can see it in time. Whatever we investigate, we can distinguish its characteristics. Time as time. Space as space. Water as water. Characteristics are Time. Knowing nothing is time. Knowing something is time.

Time is not what we think, but thinking is time.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce wrote:  Although I do not regard it as the be-all and end-all in these matters, I find the TSK approach helpful in this regard, in that it presents a vision which does integrate subjective and objective dimensions of space and time. 

Yeah, I have been meaning to read all the TSK provided by you and Davidu, Bjorn's Dogen quotes too. I will get around to it…promise guys.

–

Bruce responded:
That is a good question, and I don't think physics has the answer yet.  Einstein suggested that the answer may lie outside of physics.  When I said that all time exists “in an important sense, Now,” I meant that in the general sense implied by the block time model:  that past, present, and future “already exist” in block time, that nothing new really happens.  This is, obviously, a deterministic view, and I think it's important to note that not all physicists agree with it - particularly those who take quantum indeterminacy seriously.

Yeah, Minkowski space seems to work for spacetime where there is not much gravity. When there is a lot of gravity (where space is curved by gravity), it begins to break down and a different model is needed. And in black holes, all models seem to disappear along with space & time. So, it seems even the modeling of space & time is dependent on the perspective (cosmological or quantum) and conditions (strong vs weak gravity). In this respect, if the model leans towards determinism then that should be considered with all the ramifications. We shouldn't shy away from things that upset our sensibilities. But this is just a model of objective time. That it may be deterministic is not a big deal. Months ago in our first dialogue in this pod, I said there is no exit door in the ‘objective'. Einstein suggesting that the answer lie outside of physics seems to point back towards the subjective left quadrants i.e. back to perception and consciousness, yes? :-)


Bruce:
I think it's really important to consider this question in light of AQAL theory.  Wilber's model appears to be an open one:  there really is a meaningful “not yet” in his vision of the Kosmos; real novelty is possible; the future isn't deterministically fixed, but is in a process of creative unfolding; will, intention, and consciousness play a role in what will be actualized out of the frothy edges of our current perspectives. 

Yes, again the block time determinacy was in regards to objects ‘moving' in spacetime. And again here you are leaning towards the inner left-hand quadrants. So we are back to our view, concepts, perceptions & consciousness conditioning our subjective experience of time, yes?

Contrary to more deterministic, static views, and perhaps contrary to the Buddhist model as well, the Kosmos is actually growing and developing, and this growth is free and truly meaningful (impacting even the scope and the nature of enlightenment).  He acknowledges the always-already of buddhamind, the one taste of enlightened awareness, and yet emphasizes the “openness” of the future in a way that sets it apart (it seems to me) from both Einsteinian block time and mystical views which treat time as an error, an illusion.

Well again, let's don the perspectives and see what we find. Maybe we will find time: existent, non-existent, both & neither, and wholly dependent on the perspective.

—

Rick: Motion is like this. Something cannot start to move, because once it is moving it isn't stationary. Something cannot be both stationary and moving at once, and therefore something cannot begin to move. Once it is moving it is something else and not the same thing that was once stationary.

Well I can see something moving and stationary simultaneously. Bruce and I are getting closer to the subjective experience of time and we can hopefully investigate how then.


p&l,

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce, regarding TSK–

It seems that we can take a masculine approach to meditation, with the idea of being free from everything. And then it seems we can take a more feminine approach that involves an embrace of everything. Does TSK tend towards the latter? It kind of seems to. Knowledge is the sixth sense in Buddhism, isn't it? Is this how TSK regards it? Are there TSK approaches that involve the other five senses?

I was on your blog yesterday, trying to pick up some more about TSK. There's some cool stuff there. I also listened to the flute music, and I'll be back sometime to listen to them again. I started playing the drums at an early age, and then at some point my parents suggested I pick up a second instrument, something “more musical.” I said that sounded like a good idea, so they asked me what instrument I would like to learn. I said the flute. But they both said that the flute was too feminine. Why not a masculine instrument like the trumpet or the trombone? But I wasn't interested in those, so I didn't take up a second instrument. Perhaps that's one for the wounded boys thread. :)

Re: The Emergence of Time

This is a joint response to e and David –

e wrote: Yeah, Minkowski space seems to work for spacetime where there is not much gravity. When there is a lot of gravity (where space is curved by gravity), it begins to break down and a different model is needed. And in black holes, all models seem to disappear along with space & time. So, it seems even the modeling of space & time is dependent on the perspective (cosmological or quantum) and conditions (strong vs weak gravity). In this respect, if the model leans towards determinism then that should be considered with all the ramifications. We shouldn't shy away from things that upset our sensibilities. But this is just a model of objective time. That it may be deterministic is not a big deal. Months ago in our first dialogue in this pod, I said there is no exit door in the 'objective'. Einstein suggesting that the answer lie outside of physics seems to point back towards the subjective left quadrants i.e. back to perception and consciousness, yes? :-)

Yes, it could.  Or it might point past subjective/objective dichotomies.  But in either case, I think there is a difference between saying a subjective understanding of time is essential for arriving at a fuller, more complete picture of time, and saying that time is “merely conceptual.”

I wrote:  I think it's really important to consider this question in light of AQAL theory.  Wilber's model appears to be an open one:  there really is a meaningful “not yet” in his vision of the Kosmos; real novelty is possible; the future isn't deterministically fixed, but is in a process of creative unfolding; will, intention, and consciousness play a role in what will be actualized out of the frothy edges of our current perspectives. 

e replied:  Yes, again the block time determinacy was in regards to objects 'moving' in spacetime. And again here you are leaning towards the inner left-hand quadrants. So we are back to our view, concepts, perceptions & consciousness conditioning our subjective experience of time, yes? …let's don the perspectives and see what we find. Maybe we will find time: existent, non-existent, both & neither, and wholly dependent on the perspective.

Indeed.  At this point in my understanding, I do not feel it is accurate to say either that time is merely an illusion, nor that time “really exists” as a metaphysical thing-in-itself.

It does make sense to speak of time (and space and knowledge) in terms of perspectives.  But when I consider the meaning of perspective, it also seems to me that perspective-taking itself not only generates time (or space or knowledge), but in a sense, requires time, space, and knowledge to even arise.  Per-specting appears to presuppose awareness as well as spatial and temporal “from-to” axes.

David wrote:  Regarding TSK – it seems that we can take a masculine approach to meditation, with the idea of being free from everything. And then it seems we can take a more feminine approach that involves an embrace of everything. Does TSK tend towards the latter? It kind of seems to. Knowledge is the sixth sense in Buddhism, isn't it? Is this how TSK regards it? Are there TSK approaches that involve the other five senses?

TSK doesn't look at things in terms of masculine and feminine, but yes, I would agree with you – its style is more feminine in that it is an “embrace everything” approach.  TSK differentiates between mind, which Buddhism considers the “sixth sense,” and knowledge (or Great Knowledge) which it does not link, specifically or particularly, to any sense modality.

TSK does have a number of exercises, however, for exploring and opening the senses, including (playfully) investigating whether you can get them to do uncharacteristic things….whether you can push or open the “boundaries” of what usually constitutes the “space” of that mode of sense experience.

David wrote:  I was on your blog yesterday, trying to pick up some more about TSK. There's some cool stuff there. I also listened to the flute music, and I'll be back sometime to listen to them again. I started playing the drums at an early age, and then at some point my parents suggested I pick up a second instrument, something “more musical.” I said that sounded like a good idea, so they asked me what instrument I would like to learn. I said the flute. But they both said that the flute was too feminine. Why not a masculine instrument like the trumpet or the trombone? But I wasn't interested in those, so I didn't take up a second instrument. Perhaps that's one for the wounded boys thread. :)

:D So, all that banging was driving your parents crazy?!  I smile because I played drums too.  And trombone.  And bass guitar (with a band that rattled all the walls of my poor mother's house).  But my favorite has been the flute, both as a solitary instrument and as something I've played with other musicians.  Perhaps picking up a nice bamboo flute, or even a tin whistle, would be a way to heal the boy whose desires were unfortunately misunderstood or dismissed…. The flute, when I find the time to pull it out these days, is still balm for the soul.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

This from an upcoming book of mine…extracted from a chapter that applies perennial wisdom cosmology to modern understandings of the cosmos…

Applying perennial wisdom understanding to the most essential aspects of reality – Unity, Time, Space, and Chaos – gives us a set of scientific principles, laws, and definitions:

Unity is universal principle.
Unity emanates present law.
Unity as law is always transcending.
Unity as present law emanates radiant time.

Time is radiant cognition.
Time emanates durational energy.
Time as energy is always slowing.
Time as durational energy emanates dimensional space.

Space is dimensional force.
Space emanates coherent gravity.
Space as gravity is always accelerating.
Space as coherent gravity emanates quantal chaos.

Chaos is quantal matter.
Chaos emanates immanent mass.
Chaos as mass is always transforming.
Chaos as immanent mass emanates organizational causality.

Further to the above, are the observations that:

Time is infinite.
Space is infinitesimal.
Time and Space are the mind and body of Unified Law.
Space and Time realize universal symmetry.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bjorn: “such that “time (ji(g)) itself is already none other than all  beings (u(h));  beings  are none other than time.””

Rick: I have a conceptual idea of what this may mean, but what do you think it means? It seems rather nonsensical in a way.

Bjorn: “At first, second and third glance it is totally incomprehensable. That's why I couldn't stay away from Dogen. After all, he is not the founder of the Soto lineage, the largest of the Zen schools in Japan, for nothing. Always when the most famous teachers speaks incomprehensable I sit up and pay attention because I know I'm touching the Void.”

I'm falling behind in this conversation, because I'm busy and I want to read what people are writing so I don't misunderstand thier points.
I asked you, Bjorn, what you thought this meant, because I wanted to see if you understood it in the way that it was probably meant. That is, in a Zen way.
As our beloved Dogen Zenji also said, “We do not see spring become summer. Spring is spring. Summer is summer.”
I think that quote by Dogen Zenji is pointing at the dependent arising of time and consciousness. If all being are none other than time, and all beings are empty of a self; what does that mean? Both time and all beings are equally lacking any inherent nature. The memory of time is necessary to have a self concept, so what are you other than time? Your not really there beyond the illusion of something persisting through time.
So time exists in a relative and dependent relationship with consciousness itself, and all evolution and time happens only in local scales. The universe as a whole does not age. What would it age in relation to?
Again, this isn't just Zen retoric, but is hard scientific fact.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi Bruce,

I want to say that I deeply appreciate what you've posted in this thread from “Time Space and Knowledge”. And I do admire your commitment …. if Mohammed (that's us!) won't go to the mountain (your TSK pod), the mountain will come to Mohammed : ) And your perseverance is paying off …. I think what TT's writing about is beginning to percolate through my thick skull : )

Beginning to 'grok' it is one thing, however, whereas expressing my understanding of it may be a different matter. And there's so much condensed into each paragraph, so much that can be unpacked. But I would like to have a go at articulating some of what has been inspired in me by reading these quotes, starting with parts of what you quoted in an earlier post (full excerpt here).

”‘We' can learn to allow brief ‘knowings' which track more of ‘time' and which are broad and impartial enough to take into account both our 'self', observed objects, and other background items as all being given with ‘time'. It therefore becomes possible for such a ‘knowing' to ‘tap' the dynamism of ‘time'. To the extent that the result of such a momentary insight is again assimilated to the concerns and interpretations of the ego, we can enjoy more mental energy and more physical power as well. This seems like a veritable control of the direction of ordinary time.”

I recognise in this what can happen in ordinary situations when I might pause in what I'm doing, entering more fully in the moment into presence-of-awareness, this awareness 'containing', equally, “… 'self', observed objects, and other background items ..” and I can readily relate to them ”… as all being given with ‘time'.” This is (as you know B.) informed by / through the deeper, primary practice of 'contemplation', using for example a method such as namkha arted (a.k.a 'sky gazing') wherein all the sense consciousnesses are open, and the 'objects' of the other senses 'manifest' in space/time/awareness in the same way as visual 'objects' do.

Similarly, from further down the excerpt, ”We should, instead, learn to appreciate the immediate presence of both ‘knowing subject' and ‘known objects' without clinging to the view of them as those things. We can see them as presentations, with ourselves as being part of each presentation.“  …. I can recognise in this also the ongoing (“in-between-session”) practice of integrating the 'non-dual view' into life, or more accurately, integrating 'life' into the 'non-dual view'. And I'm beginning to appreciate how the second level of TSK can give enriching context and perspectives in this 'bridging' process. Without having done any of the exercises at all, am I correct in sensing that TSK offers a progression from 1st through 2nd to 3rd level TSK?

I'm aware TT doesn't hold it as such and it's not my intention to try and equate the two things here, but Great Time Space and Knowledge does evoke for me the full picture and the wider ramifications of the “Unique Sphere”. Whereas 'direct introduction' through pointing-out instruction allows us to (ongoingly) re-discover this “Unique Sphere” through formal practice, and then integrate our circumstances into this understanding (relating this to TSK as a kind of from 1st to 3rd back to 2nd back to 1st, then re-discovering 3rd etc. way) is the TSK approach more straight 1st through 2nd to 3rd?

I feel I may be veering off-topic here …. so back to time.

In ”We can see them as presentations, with ourselves as being part of each presentation.” “each presentation” is seen here as occurring in (2nd level) 'time', right?

And I want to acknowledge here this quote from another of your posts, Bruce, that for me neatly encapsulates the topic of this thread:

”In TSK, and I believe in Dogen's Zen teachings, time is not just an abstract conceptual index or even a commodity (something we can save or waste) – it is the creativity and vitality of the manifesting of all appearance; it is inseparable from experience; it is the dynamism of the Kosmos, of our bodies and minds.  This is not a metaphysical postulate, but something that can be encountered through practice.”

Re-reading further, the excerpt answers my (above) question for me …. as in ”‘Timing' shows all features of a given presentation to be interrelated, but not in a sense that reinforces the idea of separate items interacting (as for ordinary time).”

This too: ”So, without ‘time' we cannot have the ordinary pres­ences of ‘things'. But, rather paradoxically, an actual appreciation of ‘time' shows that the way in which it pres­ents identities, differences, and interrelations is a direct evocation of ‘space', of ‘no-things', of non-plurality” …. this really resonates with me with regards my practice. If / when I enter into “the non-dual state” in formal practice, yes, it's not lacking in anything itself, it is totality in itself, but 'my' wisdom-capacity (to call it that) is way, way insufficient to have full gnosis of this …. although paradoxically full gnosis is present, I'm simply not sufficiently present to it. (Well, that's one way of looking at it.) But I get how I am informed by this in ways that I may not readily understand, yet in ways that nevertheless have a transforming effect on my world-view's perspectives …. rather than me simply 'interpreting my experience' from the perspective of my world-view …. I may inevitably be doing the latter, but for me the work is happening in and from the other direction, so to speak.

God, as I re-read the excerpt I'm being hit by so much. Each paragraph is like a nugget of gold … or like a lemon-sherbert sweet that starts to explode in the mouth as one sucks on it. I feel like I want to quote each in turn, and revel in it …. but this would take forever and veer off-topic again.

But like someone said in another thread “How can anything be off-topic? This is the integral pod, isn't it?!”

So I can't resist this:

”No factor of experience – whether subject, object, sense organ, sense datum, position, or basic fact of occurring – is more fundamental than (or prior to) the read-out wherein it takes on significance. Any metaphysical and theo­logical entities considered (in a read-out) to be beyond, above, or prior to all considerations are also part of that read-out's logic. If we carefully examine our experience, we will find this to be the case.”

Sounds like TT's talking Kosmic address-ese here. And:

 ”Great Knowledge truly removes all doubts and uncer­tainties. But it does not know ‘the truth'. It does not limit reality in that way. However, it is accurate and well-informed of what is going on.”

 …. reminds us that the map is not the territory …. this notion being rounded out with this gem:

”Throughout all the play of Space and Time, Great Knowledge is fully appreciative, and free from confu­sions and mistaken attributions of values. It knows everything as being open, as non-created non-being. But given such an open play it can distinguish perfectly – according to the evaluations cherished within a par­ticular realm – between illusion and ‘reality', between one thing and another, between ‘existence' and ‘mere appearance', value and trivia.”

And this deserves a place in the “Buddhism and the Fire of Post-modernism” discussion:

”The ‘timing' quality can show a profound unity and no-thing-ness. With ‘timing' understood, the fact that there is no independent ‘self' or person as ‘subject' encour­ages an appreciation of openness. The self is shown to be open, a ‘non-self'. Without insight into ‘timing', attempts to show that there is no solid ‘self' or ‘subject' (because the ‘subject' is interdependent with the'object') do not work. Such arguments just show that caution is needed-that the characterization ‘subject' only applies to ‘Real people' in limited respects. The solid reality of people and selves cannot be questioned by logic alone. Thus, an assertion of ‘no-self' or'no-thing-ness' based on the con­ventional interrelatedness of subject and object would only be an issue for metaphysics. It would not affect the self-orientation on a practical level, unless it were to encourage the self's indulgence in the game of self-morti­fication or humility. But if ‘time' is directly understood, then the notion that there even are entities like the ‘self' (which can be rightly or wrongly characterized or surren­dered) is itself transcended.”

I'm pretty much out of time for going any further with this. I want to finish by noting how towards the end of the second excerpt you quoted, Bruce (full excerpt here), Tarthang Tulku gives certain caveats … as well as wonderful advice … regarding not only the practice of TSK but similarly related practices:

”It is therefore important, both for accuracy within our realm and also in regard to appreciating the infinity of Space and Time, to continually examine the truths and evidence we encounter. And we have to be care­ful not to prematurely cease this investigation. This is especially important for religious and meditative aspi­rants.

Sometimes incomplete experience of the read-out insight leads meditators to think that ‘everything is just illusion', only ‘experience', ‘mind', or ‘subjective'. But that is stopping too soon. There is no solid, unchallengeable nature to any of these foundations either, if ‘time' is appreciated with respect to them. There is also no ‘every­thing' to be ‘just experience'.

More generally, the second stage of time includes a limitless range of possible breakthroughs. Most reli­gious visions and awakenings throughout history have fallen into this category of experience. The structure of ordinary time is opened by one means or another, and further openness and fulfillment of Space and Time is discovered. But it is usually still structured somewhat in terms of a particular approach, past conditioning, and conceptual categories.

…There is an integrity, certainty, and infinity that is not merely relative. But it is found by working through the subtle ‘read-out' level of second stage experience. This process is necessary, for it helps us to transcend meanings, speculations, and visions-even those which are ‘timed out'. For, we can learn to see even apparently transcendent visions as being precisely seductive mes­sages which present themselves as being ‘transcendent', as ‘beyond meanings', or as ‘insights into relativity'.”

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi, Lol,

I'm really glad you enjoyed and got something useful out of the material I've been sharing here.  This letter is a bit late in coming, but I know you've been traveling, so hopefully my timing is right in posting this… :-)

In response to the following TSK passage…

“We can learn to allow brief 'knowings' which track more of 'time' and which are broad and impartial enough to take into account both our 'self', observed objects, and other background items as all being given with 'time'. It therefore becomes possible for such a 'knowing' to 'tap' the dynamism of 'time'. To the extent that the result of such a momentary insight is again assimilated to the concerns and interpretations of the ego, we can enjoy more mental energy and more physical power as well. This seems like a veritable control of the direction of ordinary time.”

…you wrote:  I recognise in this what can happen in ordinary situations when I might pause in what I'm doing, entering more fully in the moment into presence-of-awareness, this awareness 'containing', equally, “a 'self', observed objects, and other background items,” and I can readily relate to them “as all being given with 'time'.” This is (as you know B.) informed by / through the deeper, primary practice of 'contemplation', using for example a method such as namkha arted (a.k.a 'sky gazing') wherein all the sense consciousnesses are open, and the 'objects' of the other senses 'manifest' in space/time/awareness in the same way as visual 'objects' do.

Yes, in fact, TSK employs sky gazing (namkha arted) as one of its practices.  Tarthang Tulku recommends taking an extended “mountain retreat” to practice sky gazing, particularly during certain times of the day and year, as a way to complete and more deeply ground the first series of Space practices in the original TSK book.  (This recommendation is listed as Exercise 15 in the first book.)

You wrote:  Similarly, from further down the excerpt, “We should, instead, learn to appreciate the immediate presence of both 'knowing subject' and 'known objects' without clinging to the view of them as those things. We can see them as presentations, with ourselves as being part of each presentation.” I can recognise in this also the ongoing (“in-between-session”) practice of integrating the 'non-dual view' into life, or more accurately, integrating 'life' into the 'non-dual view'. And I'm beginning to appreciate how the second level of TSK can give enriching context and perspectives in this 'bridging' process. Without having done any of the exercises at all, am I correct in sensing that TSK offers a progression from 1st through 2nd to 3rd level TSK?

Yes, TSK does tend to present the exercises in that progressive fashion, though the text itself may shift around between first-, second-, and third-level perspectives in any given chapter.  What is sometimes missed is that the first-level perspective it describes is already somewhat of a break from our ordinary orientation.  It doesn't refer merely to conventional perspectives, but to conventional perspectives which have begun to loosen because you are coming to realize that they represent particular active “focal settings” on time and space rather than being absolute conditions.  You intuit that time or space or knowledge might be different than you have presupposed.

You wrote:  I'm aware TT doesn't hold it as such and it's not my intention to try and equate the two things here, but Great Time Space and Knowledge does evoke for me the full picture and the wider ramifications of the “Unique Sphere.” Whereas 'direct introduction' through pointing-out instruction allows us to (ongoingly) re-discover this “Unique Sphere” through formal practice, and then integrate our circumstances into this understanding (relating this to TSK as a kind of from 1st to 3rd back to 2nd back to 1st, then re-discovering 3rd etc. way) is the TSK approach more straight 1st through 2nd to 3rd?

Yes, in most books and exercises, the approach tends to be progressive, though TSK doesn't deny that a 3rd-level perspective may be glimpsed immediately.  But it does seem to suggest that 2nd-level “work” is necessary in order to really open to and integrate the 3rd-level perspective.

(I suppose you've noticed that Elias Capriles, in the excerpt I posted recently, also makes the identification between Great T-S-K and Dzogchen's “unique sphere, unbounded wholeness.”)

You asked:  In “We can see them as presentations, with ourselves as being part of each presentation,” “each presentation” is seen here as occurring in (2nd level) 'time', right?

Yes, that is how I understand it.

TSK quote: “So, without 'time' we cannot have the ordinary presences of 'things'. But, rather paradoxically, an actual appreciation of 'time' shows that the way in which it presents identities, differences, and interrelations is a direct evocation of 'space', of 'no-things', of non-plurality.”

You wrote:  This really resonates with me with regards my practice. If / when I enter into “the non-dual state” in formal practice, yes, it's not lacking in anything itself, it is totality in itself, but 'my' wisdom-capacity (to call it that) is way, way insufficient to have full gnosis of this – although paradoxically full gnosis is present, I'm simply not sufficiently present to it. (Well, that's one way of looking at it.) But I get how I am informed by this in ways that I may not readily understand, yet in ways that nevertheless have a transforming effect on my world-view's perspectives – rather than me simply 'interpreting my experience' from the perspective of my world-view. I may inevitably be doing the latter, but for me the work is happening in and from the other direction, so to speak.

I understand.  I believe that one way this might be put in TSK is that the “presentation” of knowledge “by” time, particularly at higher levels, is not necessarily bound by or limited to particular structures, and may in fact help to work a change in those structures.

You wrote:  The excerpt's last paragraph (below) highlights for me what is held in Dzogchen teaching and practice to be the fundamental and indispensible nature of transmission, and the  ongoing 'renewal' of this transmission through the practice of what is known as “guru yoga.”

Tarthang Tulku:  It is fairly easy to find the way into the unusual experiences that the second stage of 'time' offers. It is more difficult, however, to go quickly on, past this stage – with all its visions and realizations – to the third stage of fulfillment. On the second level, where the visions gain their meaning, they can be a subtle trap; they may cause stagnation or infatuation. Such visions have a tendency to prevent full resolution and at-one-ment because of this difficulty in going beyond them. In working only with the content of the visions, without understanding the 'time' that is at work in these entrancing experiences, opening to the third stage may be a haphazard affair, seldom attained. Second stage visions have the potential to go on forever if 'time' and the self-challenging read-out law is not understood.

This makes me wonder to what degree the TSK practitioner is safe-guarded by the power, as it were, of such transmission. Does this enter the frame as far as TSK practice goes? I know that transmission is one thing I greatly rely on to help keep my practice true, so to speak.

TSK does not employ anything comparable to guruyoga as a particular “method” or practice, though it does not preclude that type of practice.  The role of devotion and the transmission that can occur in such an opening is discussed, as I recall, in Love of Knowledge.  There are certain practices where TT suggests personal instruction might be of benefit, but this appears to be a “technical” recommendation rather than an indication that transmission is required.  TSK also “protects itself” (and the practitioner) primarily through its emphasis on radical inquiry, on not “settling” prematurely in constructs and conclusions.

You wrote:  I was minded of this in the discussion you were having with Edward on the “Buddhism and the Fire of Post-modernism” thread, where Edward seemed to be holding / viewing Dzogchen merely as another philosophical view, and I wanted at the time to bring in the notions of wisdom and dynamic transmission, but wasn't able time-wise to do so. This particular subject matter does raise interesting questions for me. Does Spirit naturally and effortlessly 'transmit' itself through it's various turns? Is the “post-modern turn” imbued with such a “transmission,” such that an enquirer within this field, such as Derrida, wouldn't just be left with conceptual abstractions of 'reality'? And might this similarly be the case with TSK – or does Great Time, Space and Knowledge contain its own 'inherent' transmission?

This is an interesting question, and I'm not sure about the answer.  While TT has been careful, I believe, in his discussion of time, space, and knowledge not to present them as metaphysical objects or “entities,” he nevertheless occasionally uses language which suggests a certain type of unprecedented “T-S-K transmission” is taking place.  He doesn't exactly treat the unfolding of this vision as a terma-phenomena, but there's a hint of that in his writings; or maybe it's more of a Kosmic address thing:  “The time is right” for time, space, and knowledge to communicate themselves in new ways.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

e wrote: … Einstein suggesting that the answer lie outside of physics seems to point back towards the subjective left quadrants i.e. back to perception and consciousness, yes? :-)

Bruce replied:
Yes, it could.  Or it might point past subjective/objective dichotomies.  But in either case, I think there is a difference between saying a subjective understanding of time is essential for arriving at a fuller, more complete picture of time, and saying that time is “merely conceptual.”

e:
Well again, is there a perspective that ‘generates' one outcome or the other? Why can't we consider both, see what insights they yield, etc.? Bjorn started with Big Bang (objective..then flew all over the place :), I went subjective via perception, we just went objective via physics and find Einstein himself pointing back to the subjective like the physicist in the clip I posted. So, two physicists (there are more) doubting or questioning and both coming to the understanding that time does not ‘exist' as a purely objective phenomenon. I find that fascinating!! I mean what could be more objectively real than time itself, right?!

—

e wrote:  …Maybe we will find time: existent, non-existent, both & neither, and wholly dependent on the perspective.

Bruce replied: Indeed.  At this point in my understanding, I do not feel it is accurate to say either that time is merely an illusion, nor that time “really exists” as a metaphysical thing-in-itself.

e: Well let's keep digging then!

—

Bruce wrote: It does make sense to speak of time (and space and knowledge) in terms of perspectives.  But when I consider the meaning of perspective, it also seems to me that perspective-taking itself not only generates time (or space or knowledge), but in a sense, requires time, space, and knowledge to even arise.  Per-specting appears to presuppose awareness as well as spatial and temporal “from-to” axes.

e:Yes, perspective in the spatial sense. But we are really talking about perspectives in an idea sense and mostly have been considering the ‘positive' assertion of time as existent in the objective right quadrants via physics. But are there subjective perspectives in regards to it's absence or at least it's illusory nature? I mean we have not yet even agreed to a simple definition?! So, how ‘real' can it be? :-) What role do the left hand quadrants play in it's manifesting?


p&l,

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

e wrote: ”Yeah, I have been meaning to read all the TSK provided by you and Davidu, Bjorn's Dogen quotes too. I will get around to it…promise guys.”

and later

”Yes, perspective in the spatial sense. But we are really talking about perspectives in an idea sense and mostly have been considering the ‘positive' assertion of time as existent in the objective right quadrants via physics. But are there subjective perspectives in regards to it's absence or at least it's illusory nature? I mean we have not yet even agreed to a simple definition?! So, how ‘real' can it be? :-) What role do the left hand quadrants play in it's manifesting?”

Didn't you find any subjective perspectives in the TSK material, e? ;-)

Re: The Emergence of Time

I'm gettin to it!!!!!!!!!!

That is another reason why I posed it as a question to Bruce!! :-)

love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

What I see in front of me is the same as what's behind these eyes. My view doesn't alter whether I look within or without. Objective Universe or subjective consciousness is to me a living non-dual reality of this existence, of our reality.

Therefore I can find traces of understanding in both domains, but I base all of it on the penetrating insight into the underlying true nature of our lives. It gives a firm foundation to all investigation.

Re: The Emergence of Time

I've been a little busy recently, so I haven't been able to write as much as I would like.  But I was also holding back a little, to allow time for Rick to respond to my letter to him and/or e to respond to the TSK material he's been promising to read.  Since neither has written yet ( and time keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin'…), I'm opting to step back in briefly to at least keep the thread warm…

E asked in a recent thread what role I thought the left-hand quadrants play in the manifestation of time.  I do believe our subjective conditioning and development, including our self-sense, directly influence our perception and experience of time.  Wilber comments on this in several places – The Atman Project, I believe, and more recently in A Theory of Everything, where he suggests that there are at least five “levels” of temporal experience (physical, emotional, mental, soul, and Spirit).

As I think we all agree, if we search for time as a thing-in-itself, examining the nature of moments, the directionality and seriality of temporal unfolding, the “order” of time at a given level of subjective (or cultural) development, the “existence” of an independent past or future, and so on, we find that time evaporates in our grasp: as with other things, including mind, it appears to lack inherent existence.  But time is rather peculiar, because it appears rather difficult to get away from it, to leave it wholly behind.  We can demonstrate that time is, in some way, a construction, something that the mind conducts into existence; and yet that very conducting seems to require time for its emergence or appearance.  We can deconstruct time in every quadrant; but there is still the magical arising of appearance.

Just speaking in terms of skillful means, given the elusiveness and pervasiveness of time, I find it more skillful to acknowledge and work with it than to dismiss it altogether as a delusion – not taking it for granted, but rather working to penetrate into its mystery.  So, my arguments here in favor of a positive understanding of time should not be taken as metaphysical proclamations, but more practically as an argument for the fruitfulness of a particular orientation towards our experience.

Jorge Luis Borges writes, “Time is the substance I am made of. Time is a river which sweeps me along, but I am the river; it is a tiger that devours me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire that consumes me, but I am the fire.”  This seems to me to be what Dogen is also saying; and it seems to me a good place to start.

Just as we can inquire ever more deeply into space and form and come to a direct understanding of emptiness; and into the luminosity of consciousness and knowledge and come to a direct introduction to rigpa; we can inquire into time and the temporal structures of our experience and thereby come to intimately understand the vitality of the undivided Now.

If anyone is interested (I'm thinking of you, Lol!), I will close this letter with some passages on time-space-awareness by Dzogchen teacher, Elias Capriles.  He is drawing on Tarthang Tulku's TSK vision in this section of his discussion of Dzogchen, as well as on the Kalachakra Tantra.

~*~

“…Plenitude can only be experienced in the undivided completeness of our true condition, in which the continuum of Space-Time-Awareness is uninterrupted, for there is no illusory subject to feel at a distance from its objects, and the now is not divided into past, present and future. However, the moment there arises the subject-object duality, the undivided completeness of our true condition is illusorily sundered, and the subject is doomed to experience the lack of the plenitude of completeness. As we will see in the next chapter, thus arises the present (the etymological meaning of which is “being before”), for the illusory mental subject experiences itself as being at a distance from the undivided now. If then we seek a climax of pleasure, pursuing a future, we assert and confirm the illusion of being at a distance from the now, thus sustaining our illusion of distance from the physical universe and thus from the plenitude of undivided totality – which maintains our lack of plenitude…

In these terms we could say that avidya or marigpa implies an illusory sundering of the indivisibility of Total Space-Time-Awareness that is our original condition of total plenitude and completeness (Dzogchen, when the emphasis is placed on its katak aspect), by means of the illusory cleavage of our nondual awareness or nondual gnosis into the two poles of dualistic knowledge, which are the subject and the object.

Thus there arises the illusion of a mental subject separate from the spatial continuum of potential objects and from the temporal continuum that properly can be called nowness: the mental subject that, as Heraclitus rightly noted, we erroneously regard as a separate
source of cognition, thought and action.

Upon referring to our original condition of total plenitude and completeness, we have spoken of total space-time-awareness. This is not intended to imply that there are three aspects of this condition different or separate from each other. It is once the illusory rupture of this condition has occurred, and the false appearance denounced by Heraclitus has arisen, that one wrongly believes oneself to be a soul or mind (the mental subject) that is the agent of perception, thought and action and that is inherently separated, both from other subjects and from potential objects – and from the spatio-temporal continuum as well.  And it is also at this point that the spatio-temporal continuum is disrupted in our experience, so that there arises the illusion that space and time are “dimensions” inherently separate from one another, and from human knowledge as well.

The illusory sundering of our original condition of total completeness and plenitude introduces the illusion of a hiatus, breach or gap: we experience ourselves as though we were at a distance from the absolute plenitude of the spatial continuum in which all entities manifest and that all entities are, giving rise to the spatial dimension and the illusion of “being before the universe,” and we experience ourselves as though we were at a distance from the absolute completeness and plenitude of the indivisible “now,” giving rise to the temporal dimension and the illusion of being in an inapprehensible moment that seems to separate the future from the past. Plato remarked that the etymology of the term “present” is “being before,” and in fact the illusory hiatus, break or gap that arises when the illusory fracture of total space-time-awareness occurs, manifests in the temporal plane as the present that artificially separates the future from the past, whereas in the spatial plane it manifests as the illusion of being before the “physical” world. This is the reason why I have chosen to use the term “present” only when the illusion of being at a distance both from the “now” and from the “physical universe” is manifest.

Thus, from a temporal perspective it may be said that the present is the illusory nothingness consisting in the mathematical instant (that is, an instant without any duration) that separates the past from the future, and therefore that it is nothing but the illusion of a nothingness, a vacuum or a lack; conversely, the “now” is the absolute plenitude and completeness of nonseparation between the past and the future. In fact, if we were to fully realize the now, ceasing to experience ourselves as though we were at a distance from it, we would find that it is absolute plenitude and completeness-just as is the case, spatially, with the totality of our own true condition (which, in the “extremely realistic” terms expressed above as “option [1]” may be represented by the single energy field that, according to Einstein and physics after him, the universe is). Contrariwise, the present, being an illusory distance with respect to the now, is the experience of lack that results from experiencing ourselves as separate from our own condition of total plenitude and completeness.

The illusion of a hiatus or gap corresponds to the “crossing point” of the lines of the three spatial dimensions (“place”) and the line of the dimension of time (“moment”) in the experience of any given individual – that is, to the point where there seems to be found the illusory, apparently separate, mental subject. This “crossing point” does not occupy any space or time, but qua reference point it is the conditio sine qua non of spatiotemporal perception (Descartes conceived the res cogitans as a soul that did not occupy any space, precisely because he took the illusory mental subject, which does not occupy any space, to be a substantial and immortal soul).

The feeling of lack that issues from experiencing ourselves as if we were at a distance from the uninterrupted plenitude of the continuum of total space, as well as from the uninterrupted plenitude of total time manifesting as the “now,” is the root of trishna (craving, avidity and thirst), which consists in the urge to fill up the lack – a  task that, as we have seen, we attempt to accomplish through a plethora of means that prevent us from achieving our goal, insofar as all of them affirm and sustain the illusion that we are intrinsically separate entities, which is the very root of the sensation of lack.

Paradoxically, it is the basic delusion at the root of trishna that gives rise to the need for the mental subject to assert itself as an existent, for it is upon experiencing the “crossing point” of the lines of the three spatial dimensions (“place”) and the line of the dimension
of time (“moment”), which is nothing at all, as though it were an apparently separate mental subject, that the compulsion comes forth for the latter to assert itself as an absolutely true and important entity. This compulsion is known as ahamkara or “self-preoccupation,” which is a concept of the greatest importance in the Dzogchen teaching.” (Elias Capriles, Buddhism and Dzogchen)

Re: The Emergence of Time

Balder!   Simply radiant 

Re: The Emergence of Time

An eloquent and elegant review, Bruce – not to mention a cogent reminder of how we can be in relationship to time in a skillful, dynamic manner.

It's our August Bank Holiday weekend over here, so I'm going to be away for most of a week, with very likely no access to the internet. I am taking my laptop, however, and have downloaded both “Buddhism and Dzogchen 1” and “Beyond Mind, Beyond Being ..” by Elias Capriles … so I've got plenty to read if/when I have the opportunity. I don't like “plenitude” though …. I think “fullness” would have worked so much better!

I saw The Steve Miller Band play in the '70s at a one day rock festival at a country estate (Knebworth) in Hertfordshire, north of London. A great set, and of course he/they played that song. Thanks for the reminder : )

Best,

Lol

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce,

I just put in a package, applying to a Navy crytology linguist program, trying to get into the Defence Language Institute, before finishing out my graduate degree. My lease is up on the 31st, so if I'm denied for either my top secret clearance or because they just don't want to guarrantee me the language I want, I need plan B's. So we are scouting other places to live and looking into many other options. Busy now. I'll get to your letter as soon as I can.

rick

Re: The Emergence of Time

David and Lol, thank you.  I look forward to hearing more from either of you, when you have the time and if you have an interest in taking this further.

Rick, you've got your priorities straight.  This thread isn't important.  Good luck with your job inquiry!  That sounds like a great position – very interesting. 

Best wishes,

B.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hey Bruce,

OK read a lot of the TSK material here and at the TSK pod and other places.

So, is TSK mainly a way to get to a unified awareness in the waking state?
To objectify all that which we perceive and conceive to be in or subject to,
time & space, etc.?

That is, Great Space&Great Time is a perspective in 3rd tier?

love

e

PS I am not being flippant with you here in this thread. I have spent a
lot of time with time. My oldest memories in the waking and sleep state
both involve time specifically as the theme.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi, e,

Thank you for taking the time to read some TSK material.  I wasn't expecting you to do outside research, but was hoping you'd read the excerpts I posted to this thread, as you'd asked us to watch your video… :-)

I would not describe TSK's aim or methodology as one as “objectifying all we perceive and conceive,” as that is too narrow.  TSK uses time, space, and knowledge as starting points for inquiry, but it does not amount to a process of simply learning to label things in a new way: “Oh, that's time; that's time too.  That's space!”  However, I would agree that TSK is a nondual spiritual vehicle which aims at a realization which I believe Integral would place at third tier.

To speak in terms of time, space, and knowledge, at any level, is of course to take a certain perspective on things.  It's a particular way of viewing the unbounded wholeness of Spirit-and-Kosmos.  As a vision, however, TSK is cognizant of perspectives and their enactive power, and it purposefully uses perspectives (or 'focal settings') to transform and open perspectives, ultimately opening to a realization which is beyond them.

Best wishes,

B.

P.S.  I'd like to hear sometime about your dreams about time….

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce said: “However, I would agree that TSK is a nondual spiritual vehicle which aims at a realization which I believe Integral would place at third tier.”

Could you say more about this? What lines does TSK emphasize?

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi, David,

I talked about this some on my blog, where I looked at TSK as a type of Integral Life Practice (see the last section of my entry).  As I mention in the post, TSK has elements which relate to most of the modules of an ILP, but the strongest emphasis is probably in state-training, cognitive development, and exercises which focus on the body, emotions, and shadow.

If you'd like to talk about this more, I'd like to suggest we continue on my blog or in another thread, so we don't go off on too much of a tangent on Bjorn's thread on time.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hey Bruce,
 

The TSK had 3 types of time, it seemed to me that as you progressed one to the next, the sense of being in time was changing, the felt sense of time you were subject to before becomes objectified and a new sense emerges. I will get the book and if you dont mind, join your TSK pod.

Check out this book. The book is almost 100 years old but his investigation of space/motion/time (Ch.6-12) is pretty cool and I am sure you will like it. His thought is like a proto AQAL. The thing that is relevant to this thread is his proposition that time intuited via motion is the inability to perceive the next higher spatial dimension as space and is thus intuited as motion and thus time and is wholly dependent on cognitive abilities. He has some exercises or examples that show this and with your TSK abilities, you will easily see what he is attempting to show. What is also pretty cool is his criticisms of positivism and materialism (orange vmeme) at around the time these perspectives were influencing pop thought en masse.

My oldest waking memory is staring at a tree stump on the boulevard at the apartment my folks had when I was about 2+. I am transfixed on the rings of the tree stump and someone says directly from behind but close enough like they leaned down and spoke right into my ear, “that is time”.

My oldest dream state memory (around the same time)… I am on a bed surrounded by nuns in habits, the kind like the flying nun used to wear. Suddenly I sort of levitate off the  bed (my awareness does anyhow) and I go into the bottom of a grandfather clock that is in the room against a wall, it becomes complete darkness and I either feel myself descending like flying or rapidly go thru the darkness and wake up in ‘my body'. This one scared me as a kid. Not that the nuns or anything else were terrifying but there was always a felt apprehension like a nightmare and I was always really glad to wake up…lousy nuns! :-)

I am untethered from the web till next week. Chat with you then.


love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi, e, I will welcome your contributions to the TSK pod.  And I will enjoy checking out the book you recommended.

I also had a very early experience with a “revelation” on time.  I was out working in the yard when I was a boy, probably 11 or 12 years old, and a voice said very clearly in the air just above me:  “Matter ages but time does not exist.”

Talk to you when you get back,

B.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hey Bruce,

Then why are you giving Rick & I so much slack for saying time is an illusion? :-)

C4Chaos recently posted this video of Alan Watts musing on time. I have only
watched about 20 minutes of it so far.

love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

Earlier in this thread I posted some quotes regarding at least three levels of the experience of Time from the TSK book.  If anyone is still interested, here is a link to a thread that expands and deepens the descriptions to include space, time, and knowledge.

Explaining the Levels of Time, Space, and Knowledge

http://pods.zaadz.com/tsk/discussions/view/181485#181485

Best wishes,

David

Re: The Emergence of Time

B said: “I also had a very early experience with a “revelation” on time.  I was out working in the yard when I was a boy, probably 11 or 12 years old, and a voice said very clearly in the air just above me:  “Matter ages but time does not exist.”'

That's so cool. That says it perfectly. It also sounds like a legitmate experience of–something. It's hard to know how to fit it into AQAL. How would you do it?

It reminds me of something in the preface to Andrew Harvey's Son of Man, a section titled “A Vision”:

“I was in despair a the murder of nature, at the horrible degradation of all things sacred, and at the coming suffering of millions of human beings and animals. All at once I heard all around me a voice, thrilling and loud as a trumpet, saying, between flashes of lightening and calps of soft thunder:

'I am Alpha and Omega. I am the Christ, the first and the last. I am the one who lives within you and who wants to live you completely. I am the living one you are, the Sacred Androgyne longing to be born in you, the complete divine human, whose heart births and holds the whole cosmos in its fire. I am you, as you can and must become. I am your beginning and your end. I am your original and final face.

'Worship me as separate from you and outside you and the tragic and horrible farce of history will continue; the forests will be destroyed and all the birds and animals will die …”'

It goes on. “I am the one … who wants to live you completely.” Whoaa. So there's the dynamic aspect of the thing that seems to be left aside or not be spoken about much in a lot of schools.

I really like “Matter ages but time does not exist.” That was probably the writer of the Balder Gita. :) You notice that the Christ in Andrew Harvey sounds and thinks like much of his writing.
 
“Matter ages but time does not exist” seems to say it perfectly and put me in that view: matter ages, but it's not really ultimately important. It's no big deal.

David

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce: “I also had a very early experience with a “revelation” on time.  I was out working in the yard when I was a boy, probably 11 or 12 years old, and a voice said very clearly in the air just above me:  “Matter ages but time does not exist.””

Let's not get too mystical here. Matter doesn't age, because whatever there is now, isn't what was there then. Time is mainly an illusion, because it is the illusion of solid stuff, like the world out there or you and me, staying the same, yet also changing (aging). It's a complex illusion that doesn't just go away because we have both personal and cultural memory.
Being able to have a vague memory of the ever present emergence of now, gives rise to time.
This again goes back to an earlier thread. Just because something only exists in a relational and conditional sense, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist when those relations and conditions are present. It just means that it isn't inherent because of the relative nature of those condition and the fact that those conditions are also conditional, ad infinitum.
This is hard, because we want to be differnet, and not like smoke, but that is the truth and it's a hard pill to swallow.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi, Holden, I agree that we can discuss this without having to get too mystical.  But I still am having problems with the way you're expressing yourself here because, even while you are denying time, it seems to me your comments are full of unprocessed or unrecognized “time stuff.”  For instance, you say that what is here now isn't the “same thing” as what was there then.  You are denying substantiality to matter, yes, but by speaking in terms of now and then, and a real difference between whatever is appearing now and then, you are still invoking and relying on time.  Do you see that?  Similarly, speaking in terms of “ever present emergence” still suggests a dynamic “presencing,” a creative movement which similarly could be understood as time or time-like.  Further, explaining things in terms of one thing “giving rise” to another thing also implies, and requires, time.  Do you see this?

Re: The Emergence of Time

Yes, because you can't speak of this moment as anything at all. If you were try to discuss this moment, you'd instantly be silent. As when Yun Min, the Zen master, was asked, “What teaching goes beyond the Buddha and the Dharma?” And he replied, “a piece of cake.”
If you want to discuss our experiences with words, you cannot do so without invoking time, but that doesn't negate my point. Read my last post again and see if you can see what I'm trying to say.
If time is something that comes into existence with awareness and memory, and you've always had awareness and memory, then time has always existed as long as you have. How can you speak in a way that is different from what has been you life experience from day 1?
But that doesn't mean that time exists beyond the conscious mind that conceives it to make sense of experience.
All that has ever happened in your life has given rise to what you are in this second Now. That Now is over and it has given rise to what you are now. You aren't one thing that has existed, yet been acted upon and changed over time, but are the end result of an endless chain of events. Not clay being molded, but a stream or smoke.
Because who you were a second ago gave rise to who you are now, in an endless chain of being, and you remember this, the mind automatically fills in this experience with a sense of time of the continutaion of one thing over time, but you have never been one thing.
If this wasn't so, then there would be no escape from suffering.
So again, time exists, but it doesn't exist in any inherent way, just as motion doesn't exist without the mover. If either exist, then where are they? They are like space. Space has a name, but no form.

Re: The Emergence of Time

One way we might try to look at this is in terms of states and bodies. Time exists differently, or perhaps in some cases not at all, for each of our bodies. Of course for the gross body time is a big deal. What about for the subtle body? Is there time in the dream state? What kind of time? A different kind? Wouldn't time exist in some way for the subtle body if that body has had many lifetimes? It would be more like a stream of smoke, as Rick says, which is a really nice way to put it, but there would still seem to be some kind of time. What about the causal body? No time at all by that point? Or does time not totally disappear until One Taste?

Re: The Emergence of Time

I wonder if Bruce might have addressed the above question to some extent a la TSK. TSK has different levels of time, right? If so, please let me know where it is.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick,

It sounds to me as though you are making an argument against substance – saying that no self-same thing continues through time – but in the process, you are using time to undermine substantiality ('what you are now is not what you were then'), rather than making a (compelling) argument against the existence of time.  Even to speak about a process which “gives rise” or leads to the experience of time invokes time as the basis of its explanatory model.

Although I'm playing here – meaning, I'm taking a position for the purposes of inquiry rather than making a definitive statement about what time is or is not – I'd like to ask you what you think about this argument (just to see where it takes us):  You said that if we continued to exist as the same thing over time (meaning, I presume, we had inherent self-existence), there would be no end to suffering.  And by this you are implying that the fact that we have no enduring temporal substance but arise “anew” from moment to moment is what allows us to have hope for transformation and the end of suffering.  But by this logic, if there were no time at all, no temporality allowing for “events” and “changes,” then things would always be the same (a single frozen durationless moment of all-at-onceness) and there would be no possibility of transformation or liberation from suffering.  The suffering that exists as an experiential reality would always-already be a fact, inescapably.

David,

Yes, in response to your question, yes, TSK does posit different levels of time.  It commonly breaks time down into three levels (see Davidu's post and link above), but it also speaks of other levels too.  For instance, it suggests that time in the subconscious mind may manifest differently than in waking consciousness.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce, I'm not sure why you aren't getting the gist of my point. I'm
not arguing the non-existence of time in a relative sense, that would
be ridiculous. I'm arguing against its existence in any inherent sense.
When the conditions come into being, time comes into being in a very
relative sense. This is both metaphysics and regular physics.
The
faster you travel to the speed of light the slower time becomes. If
time existed in an inherent sense, incongruent with motion, then time
would not be relative. Yet, your awareness or consciousness wouldn't
notice this change.
All things follow this rule of dependence
origination. Time, motion, you, me, matter, etc… Nothing but
awareness itself is beyond this fact. It is because awareness seems to
be the only thing that isn't dependent, as it never changes, that it
must be antecedent to matter, time, motion, etc…
This also
answers David’s question about the age of a person from different
lifetimes. I think a good mind experiment would be to have a person
sitting in front of a mirror for a lifetime and looking at it. Does the
image in the mirror age?
This also helps to finalize the answer to David's inquiries into evolution. Homo erectus didn't evolve into Homo sapiens.  One
existed in it's present time and died and one exists now and dies.
Evolution doesn't take place at the level of the individual. Yet what
happens to us now, changes the conditions that input into evolutionary
change and give rise to other forms. The connection between the two
forms in a causal chain only, and the investigation into the chain is a
conceptual act, as each event is infinite in it's causality and
dependence of conditions, and therefore not something solid that causes
something else solid to happen.
Your having a hard time by
thinking of causal chains as being like domino's knocking each other
down. There was never a solid thing that caused another solid thing to
happen.

BTW, what is TSK?

I know it is late in the game to ask this quesiton, but better late then never.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hi, Rick,

One of the main reasons I'm arguing with you about this is to get you to clarify your language and your examples – because currently, the arguments you're putting forward presuppose time even as they attempt to show its non-existence.  For example:  “When the conditions come into being, time comes into being in a very relative sense.”  This whole 'coming into being'/process-oriented model presupposes time, and therefore can't be used to 'explain' time.  Not coherently or logically.

I think we have already agreed in the past that time is not a self-existent thing-in-itself.  At the very least, we can say it is inseparable from space (as in Einstein's spacetime) – but, in line with TSK, I would say it's equally inseparable from knowingness or awareness. 

I believe you are used to using Buddhist arguments (of dependent origination) to dismantle thing-thinking, to undermine belief in continuous substance, but with time, it's more slippery – Nagarjuna's deconstruction of time notwithstanding. 

Because I'm going to appeal to TSK in my explanation of what I mean here, I'll first answer your question to me about what TSK is.  The Time-Space-Knowledge vision is a tradition of practice and inquiry which was created by a Tibetan Buddhist lama, Tarthang Tulku.  It naturally has a number of parallels to Buddhist thought, given its origin (he's a teacher in the Nyingma tradition, which encompasses sutra, tantra, and dzogchen “waves” of Buddhist thought), although Tarthang Tulku insists it stands on its own and should not be regarded merely as revised or redecorated Buddhism.  TSK takes time, space, and knowledge as starting points for investigation and as doors to nondual realization and an integral vision of existence.

Back to time.  In the Mulamadhyamakakarika, Nagarjuna deconstructs time, as you probably know, in a similar way to his deconstruction of causality.  In particular, he challenges the notion that time consists of sequentially unfolding and causally related parts (past, present, and future), in which the past can be understood as giving rise to the present.  If the past is viewed as the origin of the present and future, then somehow they must already be present in the past and therefore cannot be seen as having independent own-being; or if present and future are viewed as being fundamentally distinct from the past, then it is hard to see how there is any causal relationship between them because they exist, on their own, independently of the past.  In another argument, Nagarjuna shows that time is ungraspable by deconstructing the idea that there are truly self-existing “moments” of time.  Third, he shows that time cannot be “found” as an independently existing thing – it cannot be isolated as a self-existent underlying ground of phenomena, “in which” phenomena appear.

TSK actually makes a number of similar arguments – it challenges the linear, serial nature of time; it deconstructs the notion of independently existing moments, in part by problematizing the possibility of relationship between moments; and it challenges the notions that time is either an independent metaphysical ground “in which” events occur or that it is an independent force that impels or drives objects from without.

But TSK states more positively what is only implied in Nagarjuna's work.  Nagarjuna rejects time and phenomenal “things” as independently existing metaphysical objects, just as he rejects Nirvana as an independently existing thing-in-itself, but Nagarjuna does not deny flux or change.  Just as he shows that nirvana and samsara are “not two” and cannot be differentiated, he similarly implies that time and phenomena are not-two.  Beings are time, as Dogen argues.  And TSK makes a similar claim: things are time, are space, are knowingness.  (Knowingness here is bare awareness, the nature of mind).  Great time-space-knowledge is an inseparable unity, not only “in itself” (there really is no “in itself”), but “in” and “as” all beings, whether awakened or unawakened. 

You may gather here that the definition of time here is somewhat different from conventional ones.  Similarly, space (as used in TSK) is not an independently existing “container” for objects, or a thing or “place” in itself.  Space, here, relates directly to emptiness, to openness – not to a (meta)physical vacuum or Void. 

To make things a bit clearer, I'm going to quote a passage from the first TSK book on the nature and relationship of Great Time and Great Space:

The vitality of Great Time is the direct expression or evidence of the openness of Great Space. Great Time plumbs the depths and breadth of Great Space. Just as ordinary sound needs space in which to occur, and in turn gives evidence of the extent of that space, so Great Time resounds in, speaks of, and sounds out the infinity of Great Space. All appearance is Great Space. Elaborating on this, we can see that although all form and partitions are Great Space, the givenness of form and the partition­ing or drawing up of form into particular configurations is Great Time.

Great Time shows or conveys (in both the common evocative and vehicular senses) Great Space by exhibit­ing infinite variety. Everything that ‘is' depends on Great Space and Time.

Insofar as the evocations of Great Space by Great Time are judged by a restrictive type of ‘knowing' to be ‘things' and ‘existents', it becomes necessary to assert lower space and time to be in force. On the one hand, Great Time presents its infinite varieties in such a way that they do not represent ‘parts' of Great Space and do not block each other-they are all, directly, the full Great Space, and all commingle. On the other hand, ordinary knowing knows only things, instances, existents-and these are all quite exclusive-where one ‘is', another is ‘not'.

With an existence-perspective, the infinity of Great Space and its variety can only be approached by counting out indefinitely many particular existents, occurring in sequence. Although Great Time embraces everything in a comprehensive, nonextended manner, lower time must conform to the spread out, ‘one thing at a time' view encompassed by a limited ‘knowledge'.

Time, on – or as – the lower level, seems diffuse, or distributed. Instead of expressing the openness of Great Space, it times out things, differences, distinctions, and qualities. Its expressiveness becomes a linear stream of significations which, in their assertiveness, are exclu­sive, mutually obscuring. Great Time's penetrating evo­cation becomes a blur of meanings which draw us out and along without ever getting down to the main issue, the presence of Great Space.

Meanings cannot show Great Space, precisely because they draw one out, making ‘here' dependent for its sig­nificance on ‘out there', ‘up ahead', ‘behind and in the past'. The ‘going' of time is due to its dealing in terms of meanings and existents (things which are uniquely posi­tioned ‘here', shutting out alternative or opposite circum­stances). Time and meanings create defining surfaces that are opaque and obscuring rather than revealing.

The alternative seems to be a penetration or even a removal of these surfaces. But Great Time does not have to penetrate in a ‘going through' sense – it is unimpeded and undistributed. Nor does it have to reject or negate any appearance, because even ‘existents' – when seen as Great Time – are compatible with the special ‘nonexis­tence' of Great Space, and are actually not ‘existents'. Meanings and existents block others of their kind only when seen as such within ordinary time.

Meanings and existents can also be seen from a Great Knowledge, Great Time perspective. In that case,'we', our position, goal-orientedness, and experience – which are all subtly located and directed meanings – are them­selves nonoccurring and nonlocated.

Goals are not relevant to the Space-Time-Knowledge vision. The mountain practice [a particular TSK exercises similar to Tibetan “sky gazing”]  is designed to help reveal the fundamentally self-limiting and impoverishing character of goal-directed experience. It then goes on to show the infinite dynamism that is ‘here' for Great Time, without Great Time becoming merely another located and directed meaning or an 'experience beyond experiences and meanings.'” (Tarthang Tulku, Time, Space, and Knowledge).

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce: “One of the main reasons I'm arguing with you about this is to get you to clarify your language and your examples – because currently, the arguments you're putting forward presuppose time even as they attempt to show its non-existence.  For example:  “When the conditions come into being, time comes into being in a very relative sense.”  This whole 'coming into being'/process-oriented model presupposes time, and therefore can't be used to 'explain' time.  Not coherently or logically.”


Can you describe hot without also describing cold? Good without bad? The non-existence of time without the existence of time? These things can't be done.
You need to get passed the necessities of language.
Once you try to describe reality, your lost. It can't be done. We can only break things apart to try to analyze the whole. Once you say that time does not exist, you are at the same time positing the idea of time. If something didn't exist and could not be thought of, then the idea of negating it would not come up.

There are optical illusions that have even parallel lines in a row, other lines running through them. They create the illusion that the line are angled to each other, when they are in fact perfectly parallel. When you look closely at what really going on, you can know the truth, but you still see crocked lines. Knowing the truth doesn't straighten them out visually.
I went to an Imax show a few weeks ago, and it came with the latest 3-D technology, with special filter glasses. It was amazing. I was in the ocean and jellyfish were all around me. Where they really there? I could see them. They were right there and as real as anything could be. In a way they were real, if they weren't, then how could I say, “The jellyfish that I saw in front of me, all around me, were illusions. But, that doesn't make them any less illusions.
Time is like this.
Try really hard to think about the thoughts in your head 10 mins ago. What is it that you were doing? Try as you might, that is gone. It doesn't exist anywhere. What we call your mind and 10 mins. ago are concepts only, and are nowhere to be found.
If you would like, I can add a disclaimer to every sentence, so that you will understand the difference between the limits of human communication and what we experience, but I'd rather not have to do that.

Another thought experiment is in order. If I show you a picture of you in a yearbook from highschool, and ask you if that is you, what would you say? If you say yes, then how could you be telling the truth? That picture looks nothing like you. If your not developmentally retarded, and I know you aren't, then you probably have as much in common with the person in that picture as with any stranger on the street.
But, if you say, “no that is not me,” then who is it? Who is it if not you? If you say, “that is who I once was,” is that accurate? A mountain once was a flat plain. Is a mountain a flat plain?
If you say that I'm adding too much time to the dynamic and confusing the issue, then you tell me when did you stop being the person in that picture? At what point does a flat plain become a mountain.
If you film a tadpole become a frog, you will have thousands of still frames. Can you ever find the frame where you have a tadpole on one slide and a frog on the other?
No, but doesn't a tadpole “become” a frog over time? But it must, after all we only have 3 common words for what a frog can be: an egg, tadpole, or frog. But, if we look closely this only happens when we try to make what if really going on conform to our concepts and labels. A frog isn't a frog. It is whatever it is, but the name “frog” is nothing more than a made up label. Just as this moment is what it is, and we must label it and name it and categorize it, and place it in a sequence with other “moments”, but none of these things will ever actually get to the heart of this moment. You can experience this moment, but when you actually perceive it, the moment that your perceiving is in fact gone.


The fact is there is no correct answer to the question, “Is that you?”

I think you already understand all this, because your posts tell me you do, but I just wanted to make sure you and everyone fully understood what I'm talking about.
The fact is that awareness is independent of time. Time can move slow or fast, and neither has anything to do with awareness. Awareness is unaffected by anything that is going on.
More than just philosophy though, modern science backs up what I'm saying. So when I say, when we are time is also. I'm not saying this in an ontological way. I could also say, when delusion is, time is also. Is delusion our original state?

I need to study your last post in more detail before I comment further though. It isn't shallow, and needs more study. Perhaps you will convince me then.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Damn!

I have wanted to join this thread for so long.  I just kept holding back - out of “time” constraints I thought.  Now, I feel that the reluctance I felt was more because I was not so sure what I might have to offer except my confusion (heh heh) about this oh-so-slippery subject.  The great flow of the “Faith-” related discussions has opened me even more to this subject of Time and its role/non-role in apparent reality. 

I have known for awhile that the conventional notion of time was inadequet to any real appreciation of what makes up this vexing component in the “illusion,” but that same goes for many other elements in the illusion of apparent reality.

Since the moment when Bjorn first introduced the topic over a month ago saying, in reference to the purported “big bang,”

“This explosion “creates” space as it expands. The difficulty lays in understanding how it started those billions of years ago at a single point, but ever since continues to expand from any given point in the Universe. Not only does it expans on its “outlaying” fringes, but equally rapid is the expansion right in the center of each one of us, or for that matter, at any and all points in space. This is difficult to comprehend but can be grasped if we see it as layers upon layers. Time overlapping itself each instance, leaving not a trace of the “old” behind.”

I have drifted in the sea of “it-seems-to-me.”  There I feel safe and self-trusting enough to allow my operating conclusions to rest while being jostled about by the comings and goings of the thoughts and questions raised in this thread.

Lately, and partly as a result of the faith-related contemplations that have arisen and subsided during those discussions, I came to find myself comforted by the general tone of the discussion, in particular a subtle but distinct softening of the dialogue between the counter-religionists like Julian, and the more inclusive and accomodating energies of Balder and others.  It seems, superficially perhaps, that a modicum of civility had arisen.  As I thought about that, this sense of civility gave way to a deeper notion which I am having some trouble getting my “finger” on.  Now, I am considering that what actually emerged and is having a subtle effect on much of the conversation going on around here, was actually tolerance.  I see tolerance as evidence of faith in action.

But back to the point of the nature of time, or, more broadly, the nature of time in the context of space and knowledge.  Bjorn aptly describes the events after the big bang as rapid expansion not just from a single point, but from a possibly infinite number of points within the space created by the initial explosion.  For me, this image of multi-dimensional expansion, within the expansion of the primary set of space as it seems to our telescopes, may hold a clue as to the subtle nature of time.

If Faith as a line of development could be likened to the line of development of our appreciation of the time phenomenon, then might there be some connective tissue between Faith and Time?  Is it possible that they might be the same thing, only manifesting distinctly in a way that is not yet evident?  If the awakening of Faith in the sanyasin could be likened to a stage development where the beginning of a line emerges and it should occur simultaneously with a 2nd-tier arousal of the sense-of-time as far more than ticks on the clock, then faith is at least instrumental to move from pre-conception into the unknowingness around the truth and/or illusion of time.

Balder's experience with the mystical moment of being invested with the message that, “Matter ages but time does not exist.” comes to mind.  As Balder was only 11 or so at the time, and, presuming that the “message” arose from consciousness speaking from within, and, that the message had a koan-like quality about it, and that the message was designed for this 11-year old mind, then I would suppose, (as fits with my current operating conclusions about time) that what was being communicated to Balder was not that Time did not exist, but that time as he thought of it at 11, did not exist.

Earlier, Balder quoted Elias Capriles on this subject,

“…Plenitude can only be experienced in the undivided completeness of our true condition, in which the continuum of Space-Time-Awareness is uninterrupted, for there is no illusory subject to feel at a distance from its objects, and the now is not divided into past, present and future. However, the moment there arises the subject-object duality, the undivided completeness of our true condition is illusorily sundered, and the subject is doomed to experience the lack of the plenitude of completeness. As we will see in the next chapter, thus arises the present (the etymological meaning of which is “being before”), for the illusory mental subject experiences itself as being at a distance from the undivided now. If then we seek a climax of pleasure, pursuing a future, we assert and confirm the illusion of being at a distance from the now, thus sustaining our illusion of distance from the physical universe and thus from the plenitude of undivided totality - which maintains our lack of plenitude…

which I would take to mean that the illusion of time as linear arises over and over again when we slip, over and over again from the embrace of the present, into speculations about the nature of things.  Rather than dismissing speculation and contemplation as a lower order of endeavor, I think that it is vital to an acceptance of our present condition.  Our present condition being that we are still at some distance (time) from full, embodied, and sustained awareness of the present.  Thus time, though we suspect it to be illusory in the conventional sense, still presides as a prominent feature in the illusion.  As long as we are willing to consider its illusory nature, while acting in faith, we are open to the possibility that it will reveal its mysteries.  Thus, though illusory in the grand sense, time exists.

As to the question of the “substantiality” of time, well, a question arises:  does a “thing” have to be substantial to exist, to be manifest?  This is point around which the conversation between David, e, Rick, Balder, and Davidu seems currently to revolve.

In terms of its substantiality, time may be akin to the phenomenon of “weather.”  When the skies are clear, and the wind is still and all around seems full and stable, is this not analogous to a steady, pervasive state where “weather” is no where to be seen?  Now, not to stretch the analogy too far, I know that such peaceful conditions are actually “weather” but weather that is benign in its fullness, absent the convulsions and inherent chaos of “bad” weather.

I propose that time may be like this, that it is not distributed uniformly in space, that space itself, and knowledge for that matter, are concentrated here and there, and less so inbetween.  After all, matter is not uniformly distributed, nor, I suppose is spirit.  My sense of this arises from a feeling that we are in a bit of a time-storm these days, that the rate of expansion of human innovation and awareness (so evident now across the span of history) is not so much due to human evolution as a potential effect of our part of the galaxy moving through a piece of “space” where time is more concentrated.  It could also be that a concentration of time, in the big sense of it, may be partially governed by local and galactic astrological considerations.

So, back to the possibility of a connection between faith and time:  to me, there seems to be an awakening of faith and a sense of time as more than previously considered occuring simultaneously, that our experience here on this pod is a fractal of what may be occuring elsewhere on the planet, that faith is a submersible vessel in a currented ocean of time/space/knowledge uber-substantiality that includes spirit as divine sound in its depths.

Whew!  That's it for now and a huge thanks to all who have held this space so well.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick,

You said:  ”Another thought experiment is in order. If I show you a picture of you in a yearbook from highschool, and ask you if that is you, what would you say? If you say yes, then how could you be telling the truth? That picture looks nothing like you. If your not developmentally retarded, and I know you aren't, then you probably have as much in common with the person in that picture as with any stranger on the street.
But, if you say, “no that is not me,” then who is it? Who is it if not you? If you say, “that is who I once was,” is that accurate? A mountain once was a flat plain. Is a mountain a flat plain?
If you say that I'm adding too much time to the dynamic and confusing the issue, then you tell me when did you stop being the person in that picture? At what point does a flat plain become a mountain.”

This raises and interesting point about the illusive nature of both realityand time.  Though it is true that the picture of Balder as a high-schooler is not what he is today and, presumably does not exist in the sense that Balder exists this moment, (or is existing in the sense that he is unfolding in this moment) isn't then, there the possibility that what is consistent or “timeless” is the phenomenon of unfolding itself, that exactly the same quality-of-Balder is present at the instant the photo was taken as “is” at each moment in Balder's life “today?”

Perhaps then, that picture of Balder contains, or represents, a higher level of reality about him than is evident in the changes between “then” and “now.”  Another way in which connection between “then” and “now” might manifest at the higher level of reality is in the storyline connecting these to events in the saga of Balder.

i propose that the storyline, which is a distinct pathway for the all-important practice of self-inquiry, may be of this higher order of reality and, because it connects moment for moment from here-to-then, well, the storyline itself becomes the higher reality in that it has more utility in the process of self-inquiry than any single point on it.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce:
Even to speak about a process which “gives rise” or leads to the experience of time invokes time as the basis of its explanatory model.

Bruce, do you see the sun rise in the east in the am and set in the west in the pm?

Time, motion, you, me, matter, etc… Nothing but
awareness itself is beyond this fact. It is because awareness seems to
be the only thing that isn't dependent, as it never changes, that it
must be antecedent to matter, time, motion, etc…

Does awareness=consciousness? Then it is conditioned also as it arises and falls at the sense doors. Awareness as consciousness is often the last hiding place for self.

i propose that the storyline, which is a distinct pathway for the all-important practice of self-inquiry, may be of this higher order of reality and, because it connects moment for moment from here-to-then, well, the storyline itself becomes the higher reality in that it has more utility in the process of self-inquiry than any single point on it.

There are always gaps. That which begins, ends.



love


e

Re: The Emergence of Time

e,

Yes, I see the sun appear to rise in the east in the a.m. and set in the west in the p.m. (where both the cardinal directions and particular times – morning and evening – are determined by/correlated with the event in question). 

Why do you ask?

By the way, I meant to thank you for referring me to the Alan Watts video on time.  I enjoyed it.

And Michael,

Thank you for your reflections on faith, time, and story.  I am working on a project tonight and do not have time to give your posts the energy they deserve (in terms of a response) right now, but I'll return to them soon!

Peace,

B.

Re: The Emergence of Time

The appearance is 100% illusory. The sun does not rise nor set and yet we live our lives by this apparent motion. So time is motion in space. Knowledge is the calculation/measurement of that motion…tic toc…am pm…dualistic and 100% illusory. So, from within the illusion, how are we to talk about that which is outside of the illusion when all of our knowledge is dualistic and based on illusory appearances?

Re: Alan Watts video …my pleasure. C4chaos posted a bunch more but I could not find a way to search videos in zaadz. If you go to google and search “Alan Watts” and “Zaadz”, a few more will pop up but not all the ones I saw him post.


love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

e: “Does awareness=consciousness?”

Depends on how you define consciousness. I'm defining awareness, as pure awareness and not the thinking mind that conceives. So, then no. Pure awareness is not aware of time, while the conscious mind needs time in order to make sense of the inconcievability of this moment.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Yes, thanks.

What is pure awareness aware of?

love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

Mike: “there the possibility that what is consistent or “timeless” is the phenomenon of unfolding itself, that exactly the same quality-of-Balder is present at the instant the photo was taken as “is” at each moment in Balder's life “today?”

I propose that the storyline, which is a distinct pathway for the all-important practice of self-inquiry, may be of this higher order of reality and, because it connects moment for moment from here-to-then, well, the storyline itself becomes the higher reality in that it has more utility in the process of self-inquiry than any single point on it.”

Yes and no. I picture of the guy in my yearbook that represents me and one one that represents Balder probably have more in common with each other than either has to do with us now.

What your saying about the timeline would be true of it also weren't for the fact that you aren't looking upon the entire timeline as a single unit. If the timeline is a single unit, a meta-reality,  then there is no flow of time.  It is easy to do with people, so the time concept is hard to deconstruct while the attachment to a self is still strong. Let's expand to a larger timeline…
Where do the ancient Romans end and we in modern Western society begin? Without one the other could not exist, but are we Romans? So to, none of us would be here if it weren't for the people in our yearbooks, but we aren't them and they aren't us.

The problem is that while the concepts of solid structures aging and changing over time doesn't conform to the reality of our experiences, or of modern scientific truths, we, or at least I, have nothing to replace that paradigm with. This would mean my ignorance is really complete in an absolute sense.

Oh, and Bruce, speaking of Romans, and to clear up e's point, I hope. Would a Roman se the sun rise in the am and set in the pm? That is, would they think of it like that? Their concept of time had no am or pm, this a cultural structure that has nothing to do with experience. At noon we would say it is noon, while a Roman would say it is midday or “The Sun is halfway across its journey.”

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick, yes, I understand that there are different ways of talking about and conceiving of time, varying according to cultural as well as other factors.  The Hopis' way of talking about temporality (and space) is significantly different from ours, for instance.  Wilber posits at least five different basic experiences and/or understandings of “time” based on developmental level (physical, emotional, mental, soul, Spirit).  I don't think this has any bearing on the sentence of mine that e highlighted, though…at least, it doesn't appear to be immediately relevant.  I hope e (or you) will explain.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Lots of interesting things here.

Bruce, where does Ken have that discussion about time?

Michael, one way the two lines may be linked is faith in the time dharma–a person may not know that consciousness is beyond time, but they have faith in the guru or the pandit, so they take that path with faith that it is true.

I've been consistently inspired by A. H. Almaas recently, and his discussion of time here seems very clear and interesting to me:

Time and Logos

Time is the concept we develop to account for the fact that we observe changes and movements. If there were no such thing as change or movement we would not need the notion of time. In other words, we need time to explain processes, the fact that phenomena progress from one form to another. We invent the dimension of time to account for this prolongation of phenomena, for it is not in space. However, we have seen that change is not from the past to the present, but rather from nonmanifestation to manifestation. Each stage of the progress of phenomena simply means that new creations have emerged. We need time, and feel the passage of time, only when we are in the midst of the changing phenomena. But when we are outside of all phenomena, and are experiencing ourselves from the vantage point of the logos, we directly perceive how all phenomena arise, and that nothing moves from past to future. It simply flows out, always in a new condition. We recognize that no time ever passes on anything, for all forms and objects are eternally new. (Inner Journey Home, pg 375)


It was synchronistic for me that Bruce included the TSK quote that discussed “the fundamentally self-limting and impovershing character of goal-directed experience.” I had been inquiring very seriously into this myself:

“From this perspective, life can be lived as an overflowing, as a spontaneous movement from the now, in which the goal is not something to arrive at. The goal is accomplished without effort; it's a natural flow. Because there is a fullness, the goal manifests as a spontaneous and natural movement from that fullness. Things just seem to flow in a certain direction. The person who isn't living according to goals doesn't need to organize himself rigidly and be strict about how this or that will happen. He doesn't really have to plan much. What happens is a product of his natural process, not a planned activity. (Diamond Heart Book 3, pg 51)

We see that ultimately the true life is an aimless life; aimless not in a sense that it's just drifting along with no significance, but that it is rooted in reality. It is so rooted in reality that it doesn't need an aim. It has already attained the aim of all aims. This perspective can help you to see that you need to question your goals and what you want from them. Are you wasting your life trying to achieve a goal that is a compensation for a deficiency you feel? Or is your goal an expression of who you are?” (Diamond Heart Book 3, pg 51)

Re: The Emergence of Time

David,

To say that you have been inspired by Almaas “recently” is an understatement imo.  I finally went to his site and prowled around for awhile.  Jaysus!  What a resource.

I like your pick-up on dharma and the choice involved.  I have long felt the bhodditsatva “call,” and yet, have not taken the vow, so to speak.  Now, my experience with the arising of Faith as a consequence of contemplating and practicing Surrender, has opened new horizons for me in the vexacious contemplation of how Time (not “time”) may actually be manifest in a meta-substantial way.  Though I know that conventional “wisdom” holds that time is an illusion, the power of the concept, re the illusive world-as-it-is, is undeniable, standing as an obstacle to the development of non-dual awareness.  Still it, time in the mundane sense as well, perhaps as Time in the TSK sense, will de-construct only as the result of concentrated practice along the chosen dharmic path.

I suspect that meta-Time will only surrender to deconstruction as we approach the Turiya, perhaps only with the unimaginable merging with Consciousness.

I want to spend some time dealing with the questions that Rick, e, and Balder are raising about the possible difference between awareness and consciousness.  At present, I feel that awareness is like Faith and meta-Time - latter stage considerations which lie on the approach towards pure Consciousness.  Awareness, in Faith and riding on the current of meta-time may allow us to experience the fringes of the unimaginable - Consciousness. 

I don't think that the human mind is capable of apprising Consciousness in its pure form.  Its like (if not synonymous) with Godness and any description or definition is futile - the essence of ineffable.  We can experience it, but like a dream that fades upon awakening, we fail to remember not because it is slipping away, but because our language fails us in that our words are all founded in longing and displacement, while the experience is founded in realization, the refutation of longing.

I am, at present, deeply content with this perhaps signalling my willingness to take the Bhodditsatva vow, finally, letting the rest unfold in its own way.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick said: “Where do the ancient Romans end and we in modern Western society begin?”

That's an interesting question. I was contemplating along these lines last week–it may seem as though we are apart from the rest of the world, but look for the dividing line–where is the point where we end and the rest of the world begins? We can't find it. Same with moments in time.

I alluded to this in my last post, but it seems we should make a distinction between things that are totally, 100% illusory and can be totally dismissed and dispensed with (like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny) and things that are illusory but can't be dispensed with entirely, like time and space.

David

Re: The Emergence of Time

David,

The EASTER BUNNY!!!???  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! 

Re: The Emergence of Time

Hey, Rick, e,

You're so fine.  You're so fine you blow my mind….

Seriously – I think we may partly be having a semantic debate, centering around our preference for certain terms rather than the meanings we pack into them.  I think the TSK convention of speaking in terms of Great Time is more coherent than speaking of timelessness (though there's a long tradition of doing the latter, including in Buddhist schools in which I've studied), but the term Great Time essentially refers to levels of nondual experience which have classically been called “timeless” because our ordinary perception of the flow of time, of the absoluteness of past-present-future distinctions, dissolves.  The appearance of “going” evaporates “within” the openness of the Fourth Time, the eternal, vital Now of awakened awareness.

I say “partly” because I still think the metaphors being used by the both of you to “deconstruct” time simply aren't rigorous enough, and in my opinion, they too easily gloss over how central and powerful time is to our experience.  For instance, even an illusory experience requires time: it is not just a particular appearance, but is apparently integral to any appearance-event at all, whether real or illusory.  Some Buddhist teachings say that the world doesn't “move” at all, but is more like a series of perfectly still images which appear to move because of the incessant movement of the discursive mind.  But in this example, too, movement is not only the “illusion” but also the “cause” of the illusion (the world isn't moving but the mind is) – and this movement, as an event, however conceived, still suggests that being accommodates a dynamic quality or creativity that can't be dismissed as 100% illusory.  How can a “complete illusion” serve as the cause of an illusion?

I wrote this email in short little breaks between calls, so I haven't had a chance to read it over, but I'll let it stand for now (I'm about to head home from work), and will add more when I get home if I think it's necessary.

Best wishes,

Bruce

Re: The Emergence of Time

good one Balder.  That helps.

Re: The Emergence of Time

good one Balder.  That helps.

Re: The Emergence of Time

Yes, what metaphor will be radical enough to dispense with the illusion? The reason I asked if you see the sun rise and fall is because you keep going back to “even an illusory experience requires time”. It is like you are asking a character in your dream last night to tell you how the dream is created and how to stop it. You know the sun does not rise and fall and yet that is what you perceive. Your perception is lying to you but you refuse to let that sink in and so you think, ah but does not e see that the earth is spinning and so my perception is not really lying and then you reply back, “e, how do you expect to dispense with time when you use time in your explanation”.

So, in your same playful/serious manner…do you think that placing the adjective Maha in front of the current theme in question really solves anything?

So I ask again… from within the illusion, how are we to talk about that which is outside of the illusion when all of our knowledge is dualistic and based on illusory appearances (perception)?

You said:
How can a “complete illusion” serve as the cause of an illusion?

Take two mirrors and face them together and look at all the illusions.
The perceived split (duality) of that which has never been split (non-duality) is the ‘cause'.


love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

e:

“So time is motion in space”

Illusion in illusion…or illusion = illusion?

Frans

Re: The Emergence of Time

Space is Time
Time is Space

We can not separate them.
What are they?
They are motion.

Very fast motion

Didn't Einstein prove this?

It's all a dream! Yes and we are all a part of it.

Re: The Emergence of Time

We were here already.
Bruce did not think it was adequate
so we went subjective for awhile.

love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

Illusion is illusion in illusion.

It is epistemological illusions all the way down.

love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

Maha e,

I've been thinking about my debate here with you and Rick.  From one perspective, it shouldn't even be taking place – I understand and respect the Buddhist approach to this issue (I've studied and practiced with Buddhist teachers for many years), and I agree that the “going” and sequentiality of time are illusory (from a higher perspective), and I recognize that the nondual insight traditionally described as “timelessness” in Buddhism and elsewhere essentially corresponds to TSK's third-level time (Great Time).

In my arguments here, I've mostly be speaking from what TSK calls a first-level orientation to time.  This is the level which corresponds most closely to conventional models of time.  This means I've been asking for arguments which make sense in first-level terms (where conventional logic prevails).

When I've objected to the metaphors and models you and Rick have offered to explain the genesis of time, I've been objecting primarily to the coherence of the models themselves – not to the suggestion that the linear “progression” of time lacks inherent existence.  For instance, both of you have used models that suggest that the illusory appearance of motion and temporal succession results from processes which in fact rely on motion and temporal succession.  I've just been saying that those models are not logically sound. 

We've gotten into a kind of back and forth which may have become distorted or sidetracked because I am representing a perspective which differs, at least in terms of upaya if not in substance, from Buddhism, and it feels like this might be turning into a Buddhism vs. TSK debate.  I don't think that's the most productive way to proceed, and I imagine you'd agree.  I admit I've fed into this by arguing that I think TSK's approach to time is more skillful than the traditional Buddhist one.  But even if I personally prefer TSK's approach in this area, that does not mean I think the Buddhist one is without value or wrong.  (And you can find some Buddhist approaches which are similar to TSK's, for instance in Dogen's writings, in Nyingma Buddhism, and in the Kalachakra teachings).

You asked me if I think putting “maha” in front of time solves the problems we've been discussing.  And my answer is, Of course not.  That's not what I've been saying.  I might be wrong here, but when I have read arguments from you and others on this thread that state that time is simply an illusion – and when the explanations offered in support of this assertion appear to be unconsciously presupposing time or temporal mechanisms in the very attempt to dismiss it – it seems to me that a valuable resource for understanding and transformation is being dismissed too readily. 

As I said early on, my beef is really with upaya – and I think an easy, perhaps not well-thought-out dismissal of time as an illusion may actually end up leaving many “conventional” presuppositions and orientations towards time intact (simply because, if it is explained away or dismissed up front as an illusion, it may not be seen as meriting serious attention or discussion).  And when I see these sorts of presuppositions embedded within the very attempts that are being put forward to dismiss time, my feeling is that this is what is happening – that the mystery, power, and pervasive influence of time (even on first-level terms, not to mention higher levels) have not really been engaged or fully appreciated.

TSK's use of a term like Great Time is not a “solution,” in itself, but it invites an active inquiry into the mystery of time, and points out a way through it rather than simply “around” it.  I am not saying that this is the only way to proceed, but I do think it is a helpful one – particularly given how fundamental time is to our experience, our thinking, our perception, everything.  I also like TSK's approach (speaking in terms of Great Time instead of exclusively in terms of timelessness, though it also uses that term) because it points to the vitality at the heart of being.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce:
TSK's use of a term like Great Time is not a “solution,” in itself, but it invites an active inquiry into the mystery of time, and points out a way through it rather than simply “around” it.  I am not saying that this is the only way to proceed, but I do think it is a helpful one - particularly given how fundamental time is to our experience, our thinking, our perception, everything.  I also like TSK's approach (speaking in terms of Great Time instead of exclusively in terms of timelessness, though it also uses that term) because it points to the vitality at the heart of being.

Hear hear.

Real Time, when discovered, or tasted, or felt, or seen, will open our minds, hearts and eyes to an unfathomable depth. Some call this Deep Time, which conveys the experience very well. Real Time is the concept that came to me in my experience of it. It brings to us an immediacy that is a felt throughout as a vivid aliveness in a state of velocity. Very present, all encompassing.

As all other aspects of the Absolute this one is a rare one judging by the rarity of declarations in spiritual literature. Nevertheless it is backed up by scientific evidence. And, after all, would not all religious and spiritual experience have to conform to the one reality we're all part of? Whether we use scientific discoveries of the nature of the Universe or use experiential understandings based on inspired revelation?

As the Absolute can be described in an infinite number of aspects, the more we experience the more will our experience of life be enriched.

See, I make all things new…

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce, thanks for the reply. You have highlighted some of the snags in our discussion. But I have not once knowingly mentioned Buddhism. I first talked about perception in a psychological way, then went to physics and now have tried to go back subjective. I have asked you for your definition of time (was it ever presented?). I said time was perceived motion. Did you read the chapters from Ouspensky I highlighted? He shows there how some forms of motion are indeed 100% illusions without using time to explain them (he uses the dimensions of space and cognitive limitations). But again, yes how can any argument dissuade one from believing in what they see? Only insight is liberating.

And since you said I mentioned Buddhism, I will do so now to help keep you honest :-). You posted a short sutra in the recent Postmodernism thread from the Udana series. Here is 8.4.

One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no desire. There being no desire, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

Focusing on, There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two.

For space to exist there has to be a position ‘A' ‘here' where ‘I am'. And a position ‘B' ‘there' where ‘I am not'. To bridge the gap ‘between-the-two', that is to go and come from ‘here' to ‘there' requires time i.e. coming and going or passing away or arising. The measured length of time to come and go between-the-two of A to B is knowledge. These positions A & B can be physical or psychological. This is all very straightforward, yes? But look at what the Buddha says, there is neither here (A - I Am) nor there (B - I Am not) nor between-the-two (knowledge of time). This, just this, is the end of stress. Again, very straightforward and elegant in its lucid simplicity.


love

e

Re: The Emergence of Time

e, yes, guilty as charged.  You haven't mentioned Buddhism; I just assumed that's the perspective you were representing, given previous discussions we've had, and given the fact that you and Rick were essentially defending the same perspective (time is “just” a concept, “just” an illusion), and Rick was specifically presenting this perspective based on Buddhist teachings.  So … it was a leap in association I made, but not entirely without foundation. 

Just to be clear here, is the perspective you're representing influenced by Buddhism?  Is it fundamentally different from the Buddhist one?  If someone presented an argument that ran counter to certain Buddhist conventions, would you tend to resist it?

I have read some of the Ouspensky material you referenced, but have not finished all 6 chapters.  His “geometrical” inquiries are similar to discussions in TSK, particularly the latest book which relies heavily on geometry, so…you're right…I do find it interesting.  I'll write more on this later.

With regard to the Buddhist passage you quoted and your commentary on it, do you regard it as the description of a realization which can accommodate ongoing waking experience and perspective-taking, or does it represent the utter cessation of all experience whatsoever – a completely formless absorption in which all thought, perception, and experience has been extinguished? 

From a TSK point of view, the definitions of space, time, and knowledge you have given (in your gloss of the Buddhist passage) correspond to first-level experiences, but not to the Great Time-Space-Knowledge perspective.  For instance, Great Space is does not have anything to do with “taking a position” (physically or psychologically); it is described as openness, “an open-ended accommodation of perspectives.”

Here are a couple quotes which give a flavor of what is meant:

“Great Space remains infinite, accommodates everything, and yet `sets up' nothing and does nothing.”

“While all familiar things are separate and distributed over ordinary space, delineated partly by differences in position, they are all intimately connected insofar as their Great Space dimension is considered. `Distance between' becomes meaningless.”

“Although level three is not a place unto itself, it involves a shift in perspective that has vast lived significance. At this level we completely transcend a self-centered orientation and become fully with everyone and everything else. Locations and attitudes, problems and confusions, no longer bind us. They are seen as a beautiful play of Great Space (without Great Space being viewed as the external creator of the play). Life and death also provide an interesting play without binding our possibilities in any way. We have no improvement orientation, and yet are fully available to help other people … .”

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Bruce: “(time is “just” a concept, “just” an illusion)”

We really have to stop getting caught up in semantic debates, especially when we know what each other are actually talking about and just want to play devil's advocate.
Bruce, you know full well what a Buddhist means when they say something is an illusion, so why all the fuss? To a Buddhist, every conceptual thought is an illusion, yet these are the only thoughts anyone has ever had, so how can anyone say that they aren't real on some level?
Neither e nor myself have brought Buddhism into the argument so much, but you have admitted to knowing that this is a perspective that is near and dear to us.
Physicists love to talk about false forces, like saying that a centrifical force is a false force, things like that. But if your in a spinning object or a fast turning car the force is real enough.
What you've been doing here is tantamount to arguing a semantic game with those physicists by telling them that in there descriptions of this false force, they are reifying the very force they wish to falsify. What physicists often fail to realize is that all forces are like this; when their conditions cease they do as well.

E said earlier that, "your perception is lying to you," and I'd like to clear something up, so that we can avoid further confusion. I've talked about this before in other threads. The word perception is often used as a synonym to the word conception. But, to perceive something is not the same as to conceive something, so regardless of their everyday usage, if we say the two are the same, then we say that our everyday dualistic thought is correct and solid. In effect, we fall into the Myth of the Given.
One's perception doesn't lie to you, it simply is. One's perception of a star coming into sight, moving across the sky, then moving out of sight is what we perceive, but everything else that we place upon that experience; am and pm, the sun in orbit, a god moving across the sky, etc… are all concepts. When we directly perceive something meaning is secondary, that is concept is secondary, and this, our own mind's thought, our conditioning, our culture and personalities, etc… this is all illusion, this is what is lying to us. To know this doesn't stop the thought or illusion, but it is to know what is going on. It is not that we will every know what is actually going on in any real sense, as e said, how can we step out of an illusion from inside an illusion, but we will know what is going on in a sense that we know all this is an illusion; that is, our concept of what is going on.
So we don't perceive the sun rising and falling, or time, we conceive of these things to make sense of our perceptions. I think that enlightenment is simply knowing this fact in one's bones, on an instinctive level.

This isn't a critique of e or anyone else, because most of you have demonstrated time and again that ya'll now this. It is just, since writing on these pods, I have become more aware and sensitive to the issues of miscommunication and semantic issues. I just want to make things as clear as possible to avoid further confusion.

rick

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick, I'm on the way out the door, so I'm only firing off a partial reply right now.  I'll write more later.

You wrote:  What you've been doing here is tantamount to arguing a semantic game with those physicists by telling them that in there descriptions of this false force, they are reifying the very force they wish to falsify. What physicists often fail to realize is that all forces are like this; when their conditions cease they do as well.

I don't think your analogy holds up here, because physicists aren't committing a logical error when they differentiate between phenomena which can be explained by appealing to actual forces and those which only appear to involve additional impinging forces.  They may not be taking “interdependence” far enough if they believe that forces are inherently real and absolutely existent, independent of all other conditioning factors in the universe, but their argument in itself (centrifugal force is a false forse) would not be logically inconsistent.  However, when you say that “the experiences of time, motion, events, and sequentiality are just illusions produced by the rapid, moment-by-moment succession of still images in awareness,” this IS logically inconsistent because you are presupposing the pre-existence of, and relying upon, the very things you are attempting to explain with your model.  In other words, saying “the appearance of motion, change, and time” is caused by moment-by-moment (temporal) rapid (motion) successions (change) of images, is really saying nothing at all.  Do you agree?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: The Emergence of Time

Rick : One's perception doesn't lie to you, it simply is. One's perception of a star coming into sight, moving across the sky, then moving out of sight is what we perceive, but everything else that we place upon that experience; am and pm, the sun in orbit, a god moving across the sky, etc… are all concepts.

But that is the point Rick, the Sun (star) does not move across the sky the way a touchdown pass does! We know that the ‘truth' is the earth is moving relative to the ‘fixed' position of the sun in our solar system even though that is not how it appears via perception. So, we can say that perception and conception co-arise. That is, what we perceive we conceive and vice versa.

PS What is pure awareness aware of?

Re: The Emergence of Time

Just to be clear here, is the perspective you're representing influenced by Buddhism?  Is it fundamentally different from the Buddhist one?  If someone presented an argument that ran counter to certain Buddhist conventions, would you tend to resist it?

When I was young, I shunned no one…much to the consternation of my mother. She did not like all of my associates. So, if I had to fight Bin Laden and George Bush for the worm at the bottom of the tequila bottle I would. The worm representing truth, drinking representing bad karma and Bin & George representing ignoble friends! :-) But seriously, if you wade far enough and long enough into the cool deep waters that is Buddhism, how can that coolness not seep into every pore and effect every synapse?

With regard to the Buddhist passage you quoted and your commentary on it, do you regard it as the description of a realization which can accommodate ongoing waking experience and perspective-taking, or does it represent the utter cessation of all experience whatsoever - a completely formless absorption in which all thought, perception, and experience has been extinguished? 

No, nada, nicht, nein, never! Sunyata is not the 8^th absorption!

From a TSK point of view, the definitions of space, time, and knowledge you have given (in your gloss of the Buddhist passage) correspond to first-level experiences, but not to the Great Time-Space-Knowledge perspective.  For instance, Great Space is does not have anything to do with “taking a position” (physically or psychologically); it is described as openness, “an open-ended accommodation of perspectives.”

Well you know Bruce, the same way you are arguing with Rick & I, i.e. how can you use time in the model of the overcoming of time, can be applied to what you said above (don't you hate when that happens :). How can it be a Great perspective and not be a perspective (i.e. a position)? The feeling of openness (looking thru an aperture small or large) is still only a perspective. BTW how is this different from calm abiding? You know, being really chill and spacious, etc.

Here are a couple quotes which give a flavor of what is meant:

“Great Space remains infinite, …

“While all familiar things are separate and distributed over ordinary space, …

“Although level three is not a place unto itself, it involves a shift in perspective that has vast lived significance….

OK how is this different from the infinite first formless absorption i.e. infinite space?


love


e

Re: The Emergence of Time

I think this is more than just a semantic debate. I think it's helpful to get as clear on the whole thing as we can and be able to articulate as best we can, to be working towards better articulations. “Time is illusory” might be fine for an operating principle if you are living in an ashram or monastery and all the “time” you have to integrate involves the day to day routine, which you would know by heart. You wouldn't even have to do anything but follow the other monks, really. When you saw the other monks get up for dinner, you would follow them. Or maybe when you smelled dinner you would get up and go yourself. A lot of this dharma was created and articulated in these settings, for people who lived there, primarily.
 
But “time is illusory” alone is questionable as an operating principle for us post-postmoderns, even though there is truth to it. Is time illusory when our flight leaves at 7:30am? Of course not. We have to be up at 4:30am to get to the airport on time, and if we miss those times consistently we could perhaps put our livehood or relationships in jeaopardy. So, this is just about coming up with some articulation that, as Bruce put it, accommodates this understanding. We can't just dismiss our flight times as we can the Easter Bunny (sorry, Michael), so that nondismisal should become a part of the dharma. If it were, if we could articulate the whole thing more clearly, we would have a sounder jumping off point for nonconceptual flow states and also clearer and better functioning structures to use when we came back down to act. This must be why, in Genpo Roshi's Big Mind system, in addition to Big Mind (which many of the above quotes are referring to), there is also the Integrated Free Functioning Mind.

Bruce said: “We have no improvement orientation, and yet are fully available to help other people … .”

This is interesting and just the sort of thing I have been contemplating. It seems to me that those involutionary givens are key to understanding this–Eros and Agape and such. It's just the nature of that Self to improve things, to help etc. (though, of course, lines like affect and empathy surely come into play), and no conceptual orientation is ultimately necessary to make it work, but those conceptualizations do appear to be structures on which that nonceptual realization is built. So the clearer, more up to date those conceptualizations are the better.

I had a conversation about this with another Buddhist here on Zaadz recently. He doesn't believe that Evolutionary Enlightenment really helps with this type of realization, and I think that is true if the conceptions are not let go of, but it seems to me a deep-time understanding and ethic (if well balanced between the masculine and feminine polarities) would be a fine structure to support it, even if we drop it eventually, though it also seems to be something a person will then use on the way down. (I haven't told my Buddhist friend that, though. He doesn't like Wilber and partially objects to the whole thing because he doesn't like it that some people and views are held to be more evolved than others.)

In Wonders of the Natural Mind Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche also talks about this no-improvement-orientation stage. He calls it crazy wisdom:

“Crazy wisdom” is activity in accordance with the final, absolute view… . There are no longer any rules to follow. However, we must develop our mind before we reach this stage. It doesn't work to try to behave in this way without previously having attained correct understanding.”

So I think he's talking about building some orienting structure–something in addition to “time is illusory”–to support that. And we all agree on this, I know, as Rick says, but we don't always articulate that understanding, or articulate it clearly enough, so I think this is what conversations like this are helpful for. It's also helpful for seeing the whole thing more deeply ourselves and then integrating that vision with our other understandings and gifts and being able to express it in our own words.

David

Re: The Emergence of Time

I want to thank Rick and e, just to be clear, for insisting on the ultimate nonreality of time. It's deepened my own contemplation and such to have people hammering away at the absolute truth.

David