Gaia: Time, Space, and Knowledge - TSK Inquiry

Re: Vision and Vehicle

http://tlcoriginals.gaia.com — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:29:12 GMT

David, as usual, your ability to 'see' and clarify and articulate that with grace and beauty through your words is awesome...when we 'inhabit' TT's vehicle (the teachings and techniques presented in the books), we emerse ourselves IN the vision...

Put another way, when we drive around in an openended vehicle, the vision is liberating...lol

joy to you...*

Re: Vision and Vehicle

http://Davidu.gaia.com — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:17:20 GMT

I appreciated Steve's essay, his distinction between 'vehicle' and 'vision' seem clear. He says:

"I want to call the text of the books written by Tarthang Tulku, plus the actual practice of exercises in the books, the 'initial TSK vehicle.' This initial TSK vehicle is not the same as the TSK vision. As defined, the initial vehicle is a combination of ordinary objects and events, while the TSK vision is a profound 'seeing'."

The discovery, realization, and dawning that things are not as I thought they were; that space is not just an idea of distance between, or a void, but more of an aware field or medium; that time is more than a past-present-future structure created around positions I continuously locate in time and space; that knowledge is more than data possessed by a myopic self, but can embody a multiplicity of views, a pervasive, open-ended knowingness. We see glimpses of the TSK 'vision' by operating (moving) with the 'TSK vehicle'.

Thanks for posting it Bruce.

Re: Vision and Vehicle

http://tlcoriginals.gaia.com — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:16:07 GMT

I dunno Bruce. I tend to think of the text of the books as a way to express TT's vision, but the reason the text is available is b/c TT is human...and so it is actually our human-ness that is the vehicle, and our own awareness is the vision...even without TT's books, many have experienced dancing on the edge of time in the joy of being...sure, they have attributed it to many things, I happen to resonate with TT's idea of the 'magic of the real', and you know I LOVE the books and the vision...and what I love most about it is that there are not any absolute truths...even his own writing...LOL, and I think that is dudes main point...I didn't read all of it, but I will go back and do that now...just wanted to address my thoughts as I was moved by what I did read...

I am pleased that there is something being written about TSK at any rate, thnx for posting it...

Vision and Vehicle

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:28:26 GMT

The following excerpt, which I found published on the TSK Association website, is originally from Steve Randall's well known and interesting essay, "Vehicle, Common Ground, and Vision."

From "Vehicle, Common Ground, and Vision," by Steve Randall, in LtoK, pp. 154-6:

A Vehicle Is Different from a Vision

Of course, the descriptions of the vision in the books, as precise they are, can only point to the vision. They cannot constitute the vision, just as numerous descriptions and analyses of a symphony do not add up to the sounds of the music.
Tarthang Tulku has made this same distinction:

The vision is the essence of unity and simplicity. But the system of ordinary knowledge, which the [TSK] book attempts to communicate with and open up, is very complicated and given to such a diversity of positions that, in order to speak to it and challenge it successfully, you have to try many different approaches and analyses. (p. xlix, DOT)

For me, this distinction is related to a distinction between the TSK vision and the TSK books. The "different approaches and analyses" are what I would consider the "vehicle" for the unified simplicity of the vision. Here the dictionary defines the word "vehicle" in part as "a medium through which something is transmitted, expressed, or accomplished." For TSK purposes, we can define "vehicle" broadly as a system of writings, principles, actual use of techniques, actual practice of exercises, art, movements, presentations, workshops, environments, social groups, etc.-structures, spaces, activities, content, and pointings used to facilitate some kind of beneficial change in relation to an implicitly or explicitly identified guiding vision.

I want to call the text of the books written by Tarthang Tulku, plus the actual practice of exercises in the books, the "initial TSK vehicle." This initial TSK vehicle is not the same as the TSK vision. As defined, the initial vehicle is a combination of ordinary objects and events, while the TSK vision is a profound 'seeing'.

Now, suppose that all human 'experiences' (using the word very broadly) or all possible 'focal settings' on time, space, and knowledge (to use a term frequently seen in the TSK books) can be represented by points within a circle, and that the distance of any one of these points from the center of the circle is a measure of the depth of the experience or breadth of the focal setting, with the deepest, highest, or most nearly enlightened focal settings nearest the center. This whole set of points will be called the "circle of settings." In TSK terms, first-level experiences will be at the periphery, second-level settings will be midway between periphery and center, and third-level will be at or near the center. is near the center. A given vehicle, in facilitating "beneficial change," will operate on a subset of the "circle of settings." In doing so, it will lead to a range of other settings that, in general, are closer to the center of the circle.

Now, by focusing on the possibility of such "vehicles," I hope to help open up the tendency to treat the original TSK books as 'sacred', infallible, or the final word. Seeing them as part of one vehicle, of and for the vision, may make it more likely that other, possibly more effective vehicles will be developed for different audiences, fields, disciplines, and purposes. Tarthang Tulku himself expresses considerable openness about different ways that TSK might be presented:

My hope is that in the future students of TSK will make use of the insights they gain to present the vision in new and more fruitful ways. In considering this prospect, I sense that others have much more to contribute to the TSK vision than I do. A dynamic of great potential is waiting to be activated. (p. xvi, LOK)

The Vehicle Reflects the Vision

Although a vehicle is not identical to a guiding vision, it will ideally be closely or precisely related to the vision, in somewhat the way that objects closely resemble their reflections in a mirror.

p. 166: Effectiveness

The property of effectiveness addresses how well a vehicle functions to facilitate transformation of a certain domain of human experience--to what extent it moves us toward the center of the circle of settings. The properties of consistency and comprehensiveness discussed above are interrelated and important, but the property of effectiveness seems primary.
Does the vehicle work, and if so, how well? Can its use produce undesirable side-effects? Vehicles must, first and foremost, be functional.

p. 169: Precision Is Related to Effectiveness

If we generalize from the foregoing examples, we can say that the precision of inquiry afforded by a vehicle is closely related to the vehicle's effectiveness. Vehicles are heuristic systems that facilitate learning and change in a more or less precise manner. As with automobiles, we care not just whether a vehicle will go somewhere, but how well it will transport us. We care how precisely tuned the vehicle is.

Note that precision is not the same as truth or accuracy. The attribute of 'true' or 'false' is irrelevant to the functioning of a vehicle. The benefit of a vehicle whose purpose is to facilitate change and learning, results from how well and how precisely it works, but not from whether it is 'true' in some sense. This inapplicability of the label 'truth' is confirmed by Tarthang
Tulku's description of how TSK developed:

"Whether the new pictures and thoughts that formed as the old ones lost their hold were 'accurate' did not seem of primary concern; what truly mattered was the openness that allowed such new content to appear." (p. xlvii, LOK)

Though inapplicable to the intial TSK vehicle, the idea of truth does find its place within the vehicle. Concern with truth and falsity, or accuracy and inaccuracy (and dichotomous thinking in general) is primarily found near the periphery of the circle of settings, where what appears . . . is . . . judged in terms of oppositions such as good and bad, right and wrong. The judgments in turn find expression in words and labels, and from this foundation come doctrines, traditions, customs, styles, and ideologies. (p. 44-p. 45, LOK)

When we accept the shift from surface to substance, from appearance to realness, we look past the communiqué to accept the truth of the story being communicated. (p. 23, DTS) In contrast, higher knowing "does not depend on taking one position or rejecting another" (p. xli, LOK),

Re: Time-Space-Knowledge Interplay

http://tlcoriginals.gaia.com — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:03:26 GMT

Hey Bruce...I dunno what was keeping me from posting, but it seems to be fixed now...

My experience and understanding of the interplay of time, space, and knowledge in my life has been very satisfying. It is more of a discovery of sorts, of the pure joy of Being, and the awesome dance that experience can be when you ignite the tsk vision, and since it has no limits, there is no end to the advantages of practice. And while I may not understand the interplay as well as others, the experience is none-the-less awesome...

The vision is alive with energy, when there is complete presencing and awareness is openended...Time comes alive, and so does a sense of Being as well as all the senses. What is so extraordinary, is that this vision comes out of ordinary life, and is alive with beauty and brilliance. It is very powerful and life changing, and not in just an independant way, or individual way, it is catching and affects everyone you are interacting with. There is a knowing that comes in the moment of experience that can be used to help others in amazing ways. The knowing is clarity of the moment, in the truth of that moment and has nothing to do with analytical critique or intellectual theorizing.

I would love to see more conversations concerning it, and more interaction on the tsk board. While experiencing it does not involve the intellect necessarily, nor is it necessary for those that I am interacting with to KNOW what the vision is to experience the joy of their Being, however, I still enjoy discussing the intellectual aspects of it with those that have experienced the wonder of the vision--hint hint...lol...much love and joy, always, star...

David Levin on the Self, the Seer, and Time

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:50:52 GMT

The seer is, as Heidegger says, exceptional; and what makes the seer's gaze 'exceptional' is precisely the fact that it is neither instrumental nor detached, neither a gaze which sees things in terms of their Zuhandensein (readiness-to-hand), nor a gaze of 'pure seeing,' a seeing of things as Vorhandensein (presence-at-hand), which posits things...as 'sheer perceptual presence,' a 'simple sensory presence of the living present'...

In 'Hegel und die Griechen,' Heidegger argued that

Aletheia is that which, most worthy of thinking, is [still] unthought...For this reason, aletheia remains for us that which above all is to be thought -- to be thought as released from any metaphysically bequeathed reference to a notion of 'truth' in the sense of correctness and released from 'Being' in the sense of actuality [Wirklichkeit].

This means that we must also attempt to think aletheia free of the metaphysics of ego-subjects and their objects -- a metaphysics which installs them in the objectivity of a linear, serial time order, composed of a succession of self-contained, externally related 'nows.' The seer's vision is 'exceptional' in this regard, for the seer is one who has achieved a certain freedom from this way of thinking and seeing...

I agree with Heidegger [that] the 'essence' of our being is to exist as an 'ecstatic inherence in the truth of Being.' But what does this mean in terms of our vision? The sense of 'truth,' here, is of course aletheia. Aletheia is an experience with truth that is radially open to the presencing of the absent, the invisible: it is, in this sense, ecstatic. By contrast, correctness involves an experience with truth that sees it as a posited state; it is a vision of truth which denies shadows, adumbrations, the presencing of the invisible, and unconcealment. It recognizes only two modes of being: Zuhandensein and Vorhandensein -- in other words, it can only see totalized presence.

The seer's way of seeing is hermeneutical: hermeneutically circumspective. Instead of seeing things one-dimensionally, as most of us do today, in this age of reductionism, his gaze sees things in terms of a hermeneutical 'as.' Just as there are two modes of discourse -- the apophantic and the hermeneutical, the assertive and the disclosive, so there are two modes of vision, describable in similar terms. Here is Heidegger's discussion of the different discursive modes in Being and Time:

The 'as' gets pushed back into the uniform plane of that which is merely present-at-hand. It dwindles to the structure of just letting one see what is present-at-hand, and letting one see it in a definite way. This leveling of the primordial 'as' of circumspective interpretation to the 'as' with which the present-at-hand is given a definite character is the specialty of assertion. Only so does it obtain the possibility of exhibiting something in such a way that we just look at it.

We should note that Heidegger himself implies the homology between vision and discourse by giving an account of the discourse of the language of vision. Heidegger's analysis continues:

Thus, assertion cannot disown its ontological origin in an interpretation which understands. The primordial 'as' of an interpretation (hermeneia) which understands circumspectively we call the 'existential-hermeneutical "as"' in distinction from the 'apophantical "as"' of the assertion.

Likewise, the seer's way of seeing things is more primordial than our everyday way: its ecstatic openness, and its corresponding sense of things in the dimensionality of their wholeness, though not understood, and not consciously practiced, by more 'ordinary' mortals, in fact underlies all human perception, and not only that of the seer. This is what I think Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological explorations of perception and its temporality enable us to appreciate.

Since the seer's capacity for openness is crucial, here, for our understanding of aletheia as an experience with vision, we must briefly return to the fact that the seer's gaze is not ego-logical. That is to say, it is neither egocentric nor logocentric. As a spiritually developed being, the seer is a self, not an ego. The difference is important, so I will briefly define it. The ego is the self limited to its social identifications: its roles, practices, and socially adaptive routines. The ego is the active pole in a structure of subject and object. The self, however, is not identified with any one structure; structurally speaking, it is a process always open to further structuring. even when the self functions like an ego, it is not totally identified with it. The self is a sense of living in which all identifications are subject to deconstruction. Thus we may say that there is no self in the sense of a substance, a fixed identity, and a rigid closure to processes of change. Instead, there are only different styles, types, and dimensions of experiencing -- and different styles, types, and dimensions of integration, unity and coherence.

With the emergence of the ego, there is an inevitable agitation of mind: anxieties and tensions determine the shaping of our visual intentionalities; inveterate tendencies prevail, structuring the field of our vision in very rigid, narrow, and restricted ways. Ego-logical vision, an assertive mode of vision, always tends to follow the straight line of desire, the shortest, most direct distance between subject and object. For such a vision, a 'circumspective' experience with aletheia is not possible. Ego-logical vision is adaptively necessary, of course. Without its conformity to 'objective' truth, its relationship to correctness, we mortals could not survive. The ego-logical gaze constitutes the ground of our experience with truth -- truth, that is, as correspondence. But the seer has achieved a different vision, and he enjoys a different experience with truth. Without rejecting the ego-logical experience of vision and its corresponding truth, he has chosen to develop his visionary capacities beyond their ego-logical stage.

To see aletheically, i.e., to experience aletheia in vision, the seer must learn first of all to relax, to lessen the grip of normal anxieties and tensions. This relaxation will in turn alter the character of her visual intentionality, allowing new and very different tendencies to come into play, and restructuring the visual process, the formation of the visual Gestalt -- the figure/ground, center/periphery, focus/diffusion relationships. Without the control, the constant, obsessive monitoring of the ego, the seer's gaze is radically decentered, centered in a calm, more restful, more receptive relationship to the openness of the visual field as a whole. The openness, this visual clearing, is what makes the seer's gaze 'ecstatic' ...

As Heinz Kohut, American psychoanalyst, once observed, 'Joy relates to experiences of the total self': that is to say, it is both 'cause' and 'effect' of a process of self-development, and is related, in particular, to the self's journey towards an openness that would make it whole. The seer's vision, a vision of the 'essential richness of Being,' is rooted in a joyful experience of living in a 'forgetting' release of the past and an openness to the future. The seer is one who embraces whatever time has to offer. It is not that he knows the future, in a predictive or prophetic sense, although mystification often understands the visionary capacity in this way, but rather that he has developed a deep understanding of our protentional-retentional structuring of time -- the structural intertwining of temporal ecstasies -- and overcome the psychopathology of egologically centered time-experience. Living thus, the seer's vision is centered in a felt sense of the whole -- a felt gathering of time as a whole. The seer has 'already seen' what is yet to happen because she understands the ecstatic intertwining, is free of pathological relationships to time, and is open to whatever may come to pass in the dimensions of the visible.

~ Levin, The Opening of Vision, pp. 460-465 (excerpts)

TSK Discussion

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:28:13 GMT

For any members here who might be interested, I've been holding a discussion on TSK with members of my other pod, Integral Post-metaphysical Spirituality. You can read it here.

Best wishes,

Balder

Knowledge of Inspiration

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:32:09 GMT

Following is an excerpt from TTR's essay, Geographies of Knowledge, which was originally published privately to students through an email group.

Knowledge of Inspiration

Through all the centuries of civilization, knowledge has granted us incredible bounty. Yet we continue to filter the vision of knowledge through a subjective lens that cuts out its depth and cuts off our own capacities. Trusting in an artifical knowledge that adds and subtracts assumptions and distinctions, we cannot accurately map the shifting dynamics of being. All too easily, we fall out of balance. Our actions lead to suffering, our solutions create new problems, and the longings of our heart cannot be healed.

The Body of Knowledge offers an alternative: an appearance 'within' appearance that frees knowledge from the claims of substance. From within its within, there is no beyond the beyond, no witness proclaiming transcendence, no experience structured to conform to speculation, no truth limited by the way things 'really' are.

Focused differently, thought can inject the inspiration of the Body of Knowledge into present 'minding'. Instead of labeling content, thought can explore the space that exhibits content. Instead of tracing cause and effect, it can display the innovative time that presents appearance. Instead of proclaiming what is, it can investigate its own proclaiming. The rational and logical knowledge that define the who and where of what we are can be integrated with the intimacy of being. Contradiction can be transformed into the bonding of alternatives.

If we glimpse such new dimensions of knowledge in our own experience, we can honor their availability and cherish their power. Open to the knowledgeability of each presentation and alive to the wholeness of each arising moment, space and time become sacred. When the meaning of space unites the cosmos with our inner world of thought-perception, the meaning of time can inform our every thought and action. Resisting the call to label and to understand from a subjective point of view, we can embody knowledge as the heart of our own being.

Presented as a system of understanding, TSK relies on assigned meanings and puts forward speculations. Yet even if the vision as expressed in words remains subject to the standard limitations on present knowledge, the presentation can resonate with our own inner knowledgeability, dancing a different way of wording. If we cannot say what we mean, we can invite every experience to speak. If we cannot leap into knowledge, we let go of the secret pockets of identity and judgment. Entering the field of knowledgeability, we can face up to what we do not want to confront, accepting the authority of time and space and knowledge.

Knowledge is in the public domain, owned by no one. It is also a part of our thoughts and minds, enacted in each moment of being. TSK merges these two realities -- the meanings of thought joining forces with the meaningfulness of being. At both these levels, we are TSK, beyond any possibility of denial, affirmation, or attainment. When knowledge arises, we need not account for it; when experience opens, we need not specify the methodology at work. The closed circle that confines, the rhythms that shape and limit, express the space-time presence of the knowledge that liberates. Today, when the rhythms of time seem hostile to innovative inner vision, TSK can heal our damaged way of being.

Within mind and thought, there is a body beyond the body we know. In any moment, at any 'within', transforming richness is available. Toward the edge, at the edge, within the edge, thoughts melt into the vision of knowledge. Co-emerging, vision, thought, and presence reveal the unique trajectory of the present curve of time and space.

Explaining Levels of Time, Space, and Knowledge

http://Davidu.gaia.com — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:13:58 GMT

I thought it might helpful to post here what Steve Randall posted on his web site : here

Three Levels of Time, Space, and Knowledge

p. xxix, SDTS: "As an organizing principle for an inquiry into time, space, and knowledge, it can help to think in terms of three different levels. The first level starts from our common, everyday views of how these facets of our being operate. Do the views we hold make sense? How well do they support us in our aspirations and our activities? What are the consequences of operating with this kind of understanding?"

All material is quoted from the seven works: Time, Space, and Knowledge, Love of Knowledge, Knowledge of Time and Space, Visions of Knowledge, Dynamics of Time and Space, Sacred Dimensions of Time and Space, and Dimensions of Thought (abbreviated TSK, LOK, KTS, VOK, DTS, SDTS, and DOT).

Summary of level 1 time, space, and knowledge:

Time is divided into moments and flows linearly and out of our control, from past to future, at a constant rate. Within this flow we are limited to occupying a kind of ‘moving spot' that we call ‘the present'. We seem to ‘have' time, yet sometimes feel like we're running out of time, and can't stop the relentless flow that causes us anxiety, friction, overwhelm, and pressure. We cannot see how experience arises nor stop the indensification process that leads to increasing stress.

Space is seen as an indefinitely extended 'nothing'. Yet our experience of space can feel restrictive, disconnected or even isolated, blocked, pressured, tight, fearful, and closed in or even claustrophobic, rather than open and free. Things ‘occupy' space, have size, volume, edges, an ‘inside' and ‘outside', and feel substantial and persistent, rather than ephemeral or weightless. They can seem fixed, impenetrable, and opaque and can limit or block, rather than being transparent to awareness. Different objects are felt to be distant, separately located, not occupying the same space at once. Things and events can feel distant from or even inaccessible by our knowing. We have a kind of apparently permanent private mental, or personal space, but this is less ‘real' than physical space. This personal space seems independent of others and other things, and yet seems to change somewhat, depending on our feelings and connections with others.

Our knowing or 'seeing' is limited to a particular observer or ‘thinker' position or 'point of view', and involves a felt separation or 'distance' between knower and known. A knowing act takes some time, and involves a persistently felt central and local (‘here') position or point of view which directs knowing toward distant objects and events and accumulates knowledge. We collect experience and information by acts of knowing, and build up models, systems, and theories. Knowing and knowledge are located primarily (perhaps excluding certain sensations) inside our heads and minds. Very often our knowing and perceiving is inaccurate and biased, depending on our accumulated experience, unresolved emotional difficulties, and current desires and fears.

Summary of level 2:

‘Timing' occurs as a succession of experiences in the same 'spot' or ‘field', rather than establishing an extended `world out there'. Things, places, and processes become appreciated as being very fluid. Subject and object alike are seen as projections of the underlying energy of second-level time.

The 'quantity' of second-level 'space' is indeterminate. While objects and the observer are distinct and independent, they are also known as interdependent and co-referring. There's an increase in personal freedom, less psychological pressure, and greater physical relaxation. All going from place to place which validates the picture of a spread out world, actually occurs as a succession of 'timed out' experiences in the same 'spot'.

Knowing is not so much a possession, but a luminous, transparent `attribute' of experience and mental activity through which 'existence' and 'non-existence' jointly emerge together with dichotomies such as 'subject' and 'object', 'observer' and 'observed'.

Summary of level 3:

Different times are not linked, in a way that irrevocably separates them, by their respective positions in an infinitely extended temporal series. The 'series' is a fiction. There is no 'going' and no separate places. It is as though all the friction in the world were removed.

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. Space is not contrasted to objects, and `distance between' becomes meaningless. All existence and experience is like an apparition.

We develop a mode of 'seeing' which is not limited to a particular position or 'point of view' at all, dissolves the 'distance' between knower and known, is not a meaning but is unlearned or nonlearned learnedness, and which is beyond the concern for 'getting', approaching, or defining.

Descriptions of Time, level 1

Lived time is a rather curious thing. It preserves the abstract, index character of time as used in the physical sciences, while also appearing to us at times as compelling, inexorable, or merciless--it carries us along from point to point. (p. 121, 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)

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)

Overwhelming in its presence, time's rhythm marks and measures our lives. The steady, impersonal dynamic of time unnerves us, reminding us that we are not in control of our own lives and undermining the importance of the stream of desires, wishes, hopes, and fears that engage our attention. Perhaps that is why we tend to make time into the lifeless, invisible background for experience: a convenient grid for measurements that help us distinguish one set of events or experiences from another. (p. 74, VOK)

Descriptions of Time, level 2

[Attention reveals] 'timing'--as being an embodying process which leads to our restrictive conventional reality in which subject and object, things and `space' are seen as different. (p. xi, TSK)

'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. (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)

A focus on momentum lets us consider subject and object alike as projections of the underlying energy of second-level time. 'Time' in this second-level sense distributes experience through past and present and future, presenting the 'logos' that informs the first-level temporal order. Its dynamic allows knowing to 'build up' and interpret a world. As active vitality, 'time' is the essence of our being and our becoming, on which we feed and draw our sustenance. (p. 77, KTS)

Descriptions of Time, level 3

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)

Different times do not violate the nondistributive nature of Great Time. They are not linked, in a way that irrevocably separates them, by their respective positions in a temporal series. The 'series' is a fiction. (p. 106, TSK)

All energy whatsoever, all potential for the appearance of elements which we take as phenomena in time--volition, causation, and so on--derives from Great Time. (p. 126, TSK)

When fully appreciated, Great Time is seen to be a kind of perfectly liquid, lubricious dimension--it is quintessentially 'slippery'. For this reason--although there seems to be movement and separate places to move to on the first level, and still more open, fluid possibilities of movement on the second level--on the third level there is no 'going' and no separate places. It is as though all the friction in the world were removed--nothing can then walk away from anything else. So, from a third level view, an eternity of `straying' still leaves us very much `at home', intimately united. (p. 162, TSK)

Descriptions of Space, level 1

Objects exist, but physical space is 'nothing'--nonexistence. (p. 8, TSK)

In our ordinary space, `making room' has become `making a room--lower space is like a walled enclosure. (p. 15, TSK)

Great Space is `here' in a sense. But from a certain viewpoint, that nearness of infinity is toned down to a level tolerable for a `self', a level sufficient for `here' to `be someplace'. The infinity of Great Space then unfolds as a particular world, an indefinitely-extended field of places and times populated by innumerable particulars. (p. 75, TSK)

Space is significant for us only insofar as it is available to be occupied by 'objects', things totally separate from the space that encompasses them. (p. 120, KTS)

Descriptions of Space, level 2

Without abandoning the observed differences out of which the known world is built up, what had been known as distinct and independent is now also known as interdependent and co-referring. (p. 169, KTS)

A second-level relationship to Great Space . . . can manifest in infinitely many ways. Typical examples include an increase in personal freedom, less psychological pressure, greater physical relaxation, a heightening of the senses, and even parapsychological capacities, such as telepathy and clairvoyance. . . . But on this second level, the openness of Great Space and the relaxation of felt restrictions is still subject to a subtle, self-centered or `standard world order' interpretation. (pp. 112-13, TSK)

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)

We might say that the 'quantity' of this 'space' is indeterminate or even infinite. (pp. 156, TSK)

When the 'inwardness' of space 'appears' within appearance, we see clearly that space has no location, no conditioning, and no foundation. The conditions that manifest when we pursue things 'in' space do not impose their structures 'on' space . (p. 37, DTS)

Descriptions of Space, level 3

A truly comprehensive 'space'. . . is not set in contrast to solid, opaque 'things'. (p. xi, TSK)

This vision concerns Space, which is primordially peaceful, open. In its openness, it is an open-ended accommodating of various views, all welling up, floating, gathering within Space. Although undisturbed, it is filled with appearance. Space is therefore not static, but is instead a serene explosion of expanding creativity, filling all the eons of pasts and futures, without exhausting its openness or its capacity for exhibiting a further wealth of presences. (p. xl, TSK)

The Great Space dimension reveals an all-inclusive unity that, rather paradoxically, is not spread out over any region. (p. 62, TSK)

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. (p. 112, TSK)

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. (p. 199, TSK)

Descriptions of Knowledge, level 1

The unknowing mind perpetuates a sense of separation between 'our private world' and the 'world of others'. (p. xxxv, TSK)

We feel cut off from `the world', the object of knowledge. We try to look, to know, but in doing so we throw up a screen in front of our eyes. We relate to knowledge as though it were little drops of water, falling from different places, that we must chase after and collect in a bucket. And we try to escape in experiences that seem special in some way--pleasurable, informative, liberating, meditative, or `peak' experiences. (p. 213, TSK)

The themes of the self-oriented trend take over: a subtle grasping and consolidating, a resultant stance taken up `outside' experience, labelling and trying to `get' the content of experience, and an emphasis on the acts `of knowing' and `being happy'. Labelling, and the preoccupation with `content', obscure the fulfillment available . . . . (p. 266, TSK)

A pattern of want and need, punctuated by episodes of fulfillment, establishes the fundamental order within which knowledge can arise. Only a few alternatives for knowledge seem allowable: Knowledge that allows the self to identify and distinguish what is desired from what is not; knowledge of technological knowledge; and knowledge as a possible object of desire. (p. 36, LOK)

Ordinary knowledge could be described as knowledge built up through `models': explanations or descriptions of how things work within a specified domain. These models provide the mental constructs that claim to represent with some accuracy the `objective' reality that appears in conventional space and time. (p. 129, LOK)

Unfortunately, we have been trained to see knowledge as something dull and routine, something to possess and make use of like a sophisticated tool. We apply knowledge to our situation as we might try to fix a machine by following an instruction manual. But this way of knowing puts us at a distance from what we are trying to know. There is the thing and there is our knowledge of it, and the two are separate. (p. 167, VOK)

Descriptions of Knowledge, level 2

The `knowing' . . . cannot be appropriated by a `self'. It actually frees us from the persuasiveness of meanings. Furthermore, the exercise of this knowing does not amount to a special kind of mental event . . . . (p. 59, TSK)

This awareness will emerge as more than simply an attentiveness on the part of your `self'. Instead, it can be a `knowing' which is brought by `time' and keeps abreast of `time' even where the `self' cannot do so. This `knowing' can see how the `self' is set up, moment by moment, and how its consolidating tendency narrows down the vastness of `time'. (p. 175, TSK)

This knowledge was freely available: less a possession to be obtained than a luminous, transparent `attribute' of experience and mental activity. (p. xlv, LOK)

Conventional understanding accepts existence as central, framing knowledge in terms of 'what is' and 'what is not'. But an open questioning starts from no fixed basis. It looks beyond the dichotomy of existence and non-existence to focus on the knowing activity through which 'existence' and 'non-existence' jointly emerge together with fundamental dichotomies such as 'subject' and 'object', 'observer' and 'observed'. (p. 298, LOK)

Working together, inquiry and analysis need no longer rely exclusively on thoughts and concepts as tools, but instead can find knowledge directly within each moment--not isolated in the knower or hidden within the known, but freely available in a way that links the mind and the surrounding world, without necessarily locating either `mind' or `world'. (p. 301, LOK)

Descriptions of Knowledge, level 3

We can develop a mode of 'seeing' which is not limited to a particular position or 'point of view' at all. (p. 27, TSK)

Knowledge is the goal or the fruit of this vision--a fruit that is itself beyond the concern for 'getting', approaching, or defining. (p. 211, TSK)

Great Knowledge is the immediate and knowing dimension of all reality and experience. (pp. 211, TSK)

Knowingness has the quality of perfection. It is not simply a content of knowledge, for it involves no sense of a subject-object duality. It is perfect in itself because there is nothing more that needs to be known. This does not imply a self-absorption. It is perfect because it is all-inclusive. Nothing is left out or is an exception to it. (p. 219, TSK)

Great Knowledge is . . . . Arguments and assertions cannot single it out or refer to it. It is not a meaning. . . . This Knowledge is not the result of any demonstration or learning process. It is not limited or defined by the approach we take to it. It is unlearned or nonlearned learnedness. (p. 253, TSK)

There is no longer a 'looker', but instead, only a 'knowingness' which can see more broadly, from all sides and points of view at once. More precisely, the 'knowing' clarity does not radiate from a center , but is rather in everything, and everything is in it. There is neither an 'outside' nor an 'inside' in the ordinary sense, but rather a pervasive and intimate 'in' or 'within' as an open-ended knowingness. (p. 282, TSK)

Full knowledge dissolves the 'distance' between knower and known that characterizes conventional not-knowing. With no distance, an intimacy of knowing emerges, and knowledge becomes inseparable from love. (p. xlviii, LOK)

The Emergence of Time

http://Davidu.gaia.com — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:28:56 GMT

Here is a link to a relatively short discussion, at least at this point, entitled The Emergence of Time, if anyone is interested.

http://pods.zaadz.com/ii/discussions/view/171519#173661

The discussion begins with someone who describes their experience of time expanding, but who is not a TSK practitioner. I tried to place the experience within the TSK vision, perhaps unsuccessfully. See what you think.

Best wishes,

David

Re: Time-Space-Knowledge Interplay

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 06:56:36 GMT

As a start, I think it might be helpful to share Tarthang Tulku's description of how this vision first emerged for him -- how he discovered the interplay of time, space, and knowledge in his own experience. The following excerpt is from Love of Knowledge. If you have not considered or explored the interplay of T-S-K before, you may want to reflect on it on your own first before reading how they emerged for Tarthang Tulku as the basis of his new vision.

~*~

"An Emerging Vision

The ideas that eventually led to the Time, Space, and Knowledge vision first appeared in my mind in somewhat the same way that forms might appear floating in empty space. These unexpected thoughts led me to investigate concepts and patterns that I had tended to disregard in the past.

Observing my experience in light of these new ideas, I began to notice that there were different 'levels' of existence, and that these were linked with different mental 'objects'. Little by little, I came to some understanding of how these shapes and forms arose and how they took on meaning and value. This process of investigation circled back on itself, and my senses and my observation on every level became more clear. I learned to see on more than just one 'level' -- not in any esoteric sense, but simply in letting the mind look more directly at its own operation.

The changes that came with this new way of investigating brought with them a remarkable sense of freedom. Externally, events continued to unfold much as they had before, subject to their own momentum. But 'internally', I understood and experienced for myself how thought imposed patterns and limits. Once I saw these limits in the act of being set up, I found that I was no longer subject to them. At the same time, it was not 'I' who was gaining freedom or discovering new insights. Instead, knowledge seemed to be active in a new way.

In exploring these issues and insights, I made a distinction between the 'external' world of objects and the 'internal' world of sensory experience. In looking at the 'objective world' I could focus my understanding in terms of 'space', while in looking at the operation of the senses, I had to introduce 'time' as a factor in understanding. This in turn led me to look at 'experience', which seemed to be given by time directly, and to inquire into the connection between experience and the activity of the mind. The interactions among time, space, and knowledge engaged my attention more fully, gradually unfolding into an encompassing vision.

The course of investigation and research that I was carrying out seemed to me rather unusual. Although I had been raised in a tradition where inquiry into the workings of mind was an integral part of education, the specific approach I now found myself adopting had no direct connection to this tradition, or to any other path of inquiry that I was familiar with. I saw the clear potential for tracing such connections, or for exploring possible links between what I was discovering and the views of science. While this approach would have been interesting, it would also have led away from the immediacy of inquiry into a realm where identities, orientations, definitions, and descriptions played a large role. Instead, I simply continued to observe myself and my experience in light of time, space, and knowledge, content to let the new vision develop naturally.

The unfolding vision allowed a more multidimensional understanding, as though I were being guided simultaneously by several compasses, each pointing in a different direction, yet each somehow accurate. The conventional limitation that confines observation to a single 'point of view' situated in space and time had less hold. Knowledge itself seemed to be opening, like a light that had previously been obscured but now was radiating from all directions. This knowledge was freely available: less a possession to be obtained than a luminous, transparent 'attribute' of experience and mental activity.

In tapping this powerful and liberating vision, I never had the sense that I had discovered an esoteric, hidden knowledge. Instead, it seemed to me that the TSK vision gave access to a knowing integral to all knowledge, potentially available within all times and in all circumstances. Observation and inquiry allowed anyone to become a 'witness' for the 'self-evidence' of knowledge. The inner strength and certainty released by the vision, the dynamic activity of the mind that knew, and the physical embodiment in space that made this knowing possible were all expressions of knowledge.

From this new perspective, there was no 'higher' knowledge; only different forms of 'knowingness', like the different levels of meaning in a richly symbolic work of art or philosophy. The varying manifestations of mind - in thought, in consciousness, in awareness -- could be understood as responses by 'knowingness' to changing circumstances and connections.

I found it helpful to think of conventional knowledge as being like a fabric, woven through the activity of the knowing 'subject' in its interaction with the known 'object'. This fabric served to veil the natural light of Knowledge 'within' being. But contacting 'knowingness' through observation and inquiry loosened' the fabric's weave, allowing a luminous knowing to shine through.

At first, this luminous knowing seemed quite separate from 'knowledge' of the ordinary 'objects' and the 'events' that time presented. Gradually, however, I began to see the 'fabric' of temporal subject-object interactions as a direct expression of knowledge, and the 'weaving' of the fabric as the active temporal manifestation of luminosity'. Only because conventional knowledge interpreted the 'temporal fabric' as an obscuring, 'solid' reality did experience so often have the flavor of stagnation, conditioning, and bondage. Emotionality, confusion, and not-knowing were 'postures' -- the out-comes of 'positions' adopted by the 'subject' as specific interpretations of the subject-object interaction posited by conventional knowledge. By interpreting the positions themselves as being 'real', conventional knowledge assured that the postures adopted by the self would be frozen and inflexible.

A commitment to open observation appeared to reverse this well-established tendency, restoring balance and new potential to experience. I became increasingly aware of the artificial limits we place on observation, focusing on the world around us while ignoring our own minds and the operation of the knowing faculty. Observation can 'know' mental events such as feelings and emotions, and on that basis we assert that we 'know' how to use the mind in specific ways. Such 'knowing', however, is painfully restricted. We do not 'know' how to 'touch' the mind directly, or how to observe the interaction of 'subject' and 'object', 'self and 'world'. We remain oblivious to the subtle constructs that shape both our understanding, and the world that we experience.

Instead of challenging these restrictions, I let 'observation' expand to include them. Just as the mind knows 'events' and 'things' in a particular way, so it knows 'mind' in a particular way. But this 'minding' of the mind -- the capacity for knowing and for constructing models that shape the scope of our knowing -- can be observed directly in action. When I followed this course, conventional patterns and structures and the models or 'programs' that generate them began to seem transparent. Whether the new pictures and thoughts that formed as the old ones lost their hold were 'accurate' did not seem of primary concern; what truly mattered was the openness that allowed such new content to appear.

As this capacity for knowing and exercising the mind expanded, I tasted a deep and nourishing enjoyment. From enjoyment came clarity, and from clarity a sense of appreciation for the brilliant and powerful dynamic of knowledge. Eventually, I touched an awareness that seemed to 'embody' both clarity and appreciation, 'understanding' and 'feeling', but to go beyond them as well. I realized that this awareness could best be described as the love of knowledge."

Time-Space-Knowledge Interplay

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 06:46:38 GMT

Every now and then, I like to take walks which I dedicate to exploring the interplay of time, space, and knowledge in my experience. I do this in a number of ways, sometimes following TSK exercises which relate to this sort of inquiry, and at other times just doing this in an open-ended and spontaneous way, paying attention to whatever arises at that time. In this practice, I have been struck on a number of occasions how seamlessly these three facets of experience feed into and support one another -- how inseparable they seem, and how surprisingly nourishing when contacted and appreciated. (Sometimes I also do this in conjunction with the "Integral" practice of touching and exploring person-perspectives directly as well ... but that would be a discussion for the Integral TSK board...)

Time, space, and knowledge are rather abstract, even cold sounding words. As abstractions, they may appear to have little to do with the rich tapestry of our lived experience -- as removed from the immediacy of experience and feeling as quarks and atoms, or as cold and impersonal as an algebraic equation.

But in delving into the TSK vision, this is not at all what I have found. I don't want to say much in this first post, but would like to ask anyone here to share your experience and understanding of the interplay of time, space, and knowledge in your life. There are lots of ways to "carve up" experience, lots of ways to map the various dimensions of being and knowing, and time-space-knowledge is only one way of doing so. But, in my opinion, when explored openly, it turns out to be a particularly rich one. You may not have thought a lot about these three aspects of your experience, or may not have reflected specifically on their interplay. So, I'd just like to invite an open, light-handed exploration of these things. If you have the time and inclination, sit quietly (or take a meditative walk) and see how these things show up and interact in (as?) the living texture of your embodied experience. Can you relate to one of these aspects more than another? Do any particularly attract or repel you? Where are "you" in relation to these things?

There are particular practices we could take up, but I'm leaving this open for the time being -- not wanting to predetermine how this discussion unfolds, or unduly influence what aspects of time, space, and knowledge are brought to the table. Anything is okay.

Best wishes,

Balder