Gaia Community

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.

Show Replies

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.