Gaia Community

Krishnamurti on the Ending of Time

Balder said Jan 23, 2007, 9:58 PM:

Here is an excerpt from one of Krishnamurti's inquiries into the 'ending of time':

KRISHNAMURTI: We were saying that psychological time is conflict, that time is the enemy of man. And that enemy has existed from the beginning of man. And we asked, why has man from the beginning taken a `wrong turn', a `wrong path'? And, if so, is it possible to turn man in another direction in which he can live without conflict? Because, as we said yesterday, the outer movement is also the same as the inner movement. There is no separation between inner and outer. It is the same movement. And we asked whether we were concerned deeply and passionately to turn man in another direction so that he doesn't live in time, with a knowledge only of the outer things. The religions, the politicians, the educators have failed: they have never been concerned about this. Would you agree to that?
     DAVID BOHM: Yes. I think the religions have tried to discuss the eternal values beyond time but they don't seem to have succeeded.

     K: That is what I want to get at. To them it has been an idea, an ideal, a principle, a value, but not an actuality, and most of the religious people have their anchor in a belief, in a principle, in an image, in knowledge, in jesus or in something or other.

     DB: Yes, but if you were to consider all the religions, say the various forms of Buddhism, they try to say this very thing which you are saying, to some extent.

     K: To some extent but what I am trying to get at is: why has man never confronted this problem? Why haven't we said `Let's end conflict'? Instead we have been encouraged because through conflict we think there is progress.

     DB: It can be a certain source of stimulus to try to overcome opposition.

     K: Yes, Sir, but if you and I see the truth of this, not in abstraction, but actually, deeply, can we act in such a way that every issue is resolved instantly, immediately, so that psycholog- ical time is abolished? And as we asked yesterday, when you come to? that point where there is nothing and there is everything, where all that is energy - when time ends, is there a beginning of something totally new? Is there a beginning which is not enmeshed in time? Now how shall we discover it? Words are necessary to communicate. But the word is not that thing. So what is there when all time ends? Psychological time, not time of…

     DB: …time of day.

     K: Yes. Time as the `me', the ego, and when that completely comes to an end, what is there that begins? Could we say that out of the ashes of time there is a new growth? What is that which begins - no, that word `begins' implies time too.

     DB: Whatever we mean, that which arises.

     K: That arises, what is it?

     DB: Well, as we said yesterday, essentially it is creation, the possibility of creation.

     K: Yes, creation. Is that it? Is something new being born?

     DB: It is not the process of becoming.

     K: Oh, no, that is finished. Becoming is the worst, that is time, that is the real root of this conflict. We are trying to find out what happens when the `I', which is time, has completely come to an end. I believe the Buddha is supposed to have said `Nirvana'. And the Hindus call it Moksha. I don't know whether the Christians call it Heaven…

     DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar state…

     K: Similar, yes. But you see, the Christian mystics, as far as I understand it, are rooted in jesus, in the Church, in the whole belief. They have never gone beyond it.

     DB: Yes, well that seems so. As far as I know anyway.

     K: Now we have said belief, attachment to all that is out, finished. That is all part of the `I'. Now when there is that absolute cleansing of the mind from the accumulation of time, which is the essence of the `me', what takes place?

Show Replies

Re: Krishnamurti on the Ending of Time

Siva said Jan 24, 2007, 2:47 AM:

If the beginning and end of everything is enmeshed in time then is there anything that exists beyond the tentacles of time? In order to understand time we may have to grow beyond time and watch it from a distance. So long as we are immersed in time and are dissolved in it how can we know in what way it is different from our existence?
“Kalatita” is a word in Sanskrit which means “Beyond time”. It naturally gives rise to an idea that there exists something beyond the ubiquitous phenomenon called time.

Re: Krishnamurti on the Ending of Time

Balder said Jan 24, 2007, 7:52 AM:

In Krishnamurti's teachings, 'time' is used in a specialized way and refers to the psychological movement of 'becoming' based on memory and projection. He contends that we can move beyond this particular psychological orientation – e.g., identification with images. I believe this is possible. But it appears to be another question altogether, whether we can move beyond time in all its forms – not just as psychological projection, but as that dimension of being that allows for the creative unfolding of events.

It is very difficult to imagine moving beyond time altogether – even if one has had 'timeless' experiences in which experiencing ceases and there is a kind of 'void' or gap, or a presence beyond form and motion. These experiences may first appear to be bounded on either side by the normal sense of time, but then you may find that that 'presence' is the background or even the abiding flavor of all experiencing.

Because of this intimacy of timeless presence and time, I prefer words such as the Fourth Time (Nyingma Buddhism) or Great Time (TSK) to refer to that dimension of being traditionally called 'the timeless.'

Re: Krishnamurti on the Ending of Time

Siva said Jan 30, 2007, 6:41 AM:

The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the law of nature, i.e., our fundamental physics are time-reversal invariant. In other words the laws of physics are such that anything that can happen moving forward through time is just as possible moving backwards in time. Or, put in another way, through the eyesof physics, there will be no distinction, in terms of possibility, between what happens in a movie if the film is run forward, or if the film is run backwards.
The second fact is that our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses fall and break all the time, but shards of glass do not put themselves back together and fly up on tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can affect the future.