Guest guest Posted September 17, 1998 Report Share Posted September 17, 1998 Dear Sadananda, Before embarking on the exercise of whether time is composed of one or two thoughts we need to understand how we think. What we normally understand to be a single thought is often 2, 3, or hundred thoughts below the surface. It is now 12.30 and the thought "I must have lunch" arises. Most people understand this to be a single thought. Yet there are several thoughts associated with lunch, and the notion of 'I' has probably hundreds of thoughts. Which is why some people have said that the 'I' is time, and when the 'I' ends so does time. Now every thought arises to this 'I'. Therefore, fundamentally thoughts arise two or more at a time. Your theories of physics are not disturbed. Regards, ---Viswanath >sadananda <sada >Mailing-List: list advaitin ; contact >Delivered-mailing list advaitin >Precedence: bulk >Reply-to: advaitin >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Concept of time > >sadananda <sada > >>Gregory Goode <goode >> >>This is beautiful and poetic. There is another way to understand time, >>which comes from Sri Atmananda -- time itself is merely another thought >>which arises against the background of consciousness. In the case of the >>Bhagavatam, time would be yet another gopi, dancing along with the gopis of >>the objects measured by time, or the gopis of the objects that pass in >>time. All the while, Krishna is the changeless, timeless background. >> >>--Greg > >Greg, based on my understanding, there is some problem to consider time >just as one thought. Time is not tangible like object thoughts. The reason >is for time to be defined you need two - two sequential events as per >Einstein or two sequential experiences as per advaita vedanta, since events >by themselves has no meaning unless there is the same observer of the two >events or experiencer of the two events. Interestingly time is designated >as square root of i even in science to indicate its imaginary nature. To >define you need two - past and present or present and future. But existence >and awareness is only in the present. In the present there is no time >since it requires two to define time. Interestingly we can only work in >the present, experience in the present, and in fact live only in the >present; The past was present when we lived, the future will be present >when we will live and in the present, time is not defined. What is there >in the present is only our presence. > > To create a time, you need first thought and then followed by the second >thought. After the second thought, the concept of time is created. In >bible, it is said that sun was created on the third day. Since there is no >way to know the day and night when there was no sun, it only implies that >third in the sequence of creation is the time concept, since we need two to >start with. Interestingly the unit of the time happened to be second rather >than first, since you need two. When one is experiencing deep sleep state, >there is no time since there is only a single experience - sleep. This is >true. we loose the concept of time when we are involved in one single >intense experience, say immersed in a interesting story. > >In terms of gopies, in Sri Atmanandaji's analogy, we need two of them as >thoughts to define the elusive quantity, the measure of gap between them, >thus defining time. Of course Krishna is there in the gopies as well as in >the gap between the gopies. > > >Hari Om! >Sadananda > >K. Sadananda >Code 6323 >Naval Research Laboratory >Washington D.C. 20375 >Voice (202)767-2117 >Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 1998 Report Share Posted September 17, 1998 respectfully, i offer my best greetings. please thank you for allowing me to write about time in the midst of a discussion which i'm unqualified to join. the inspirational talks about time's sequential nature forced me to my bookshelf where i found a chapter by mysore hiriyanna named << advaitic conception of time >>. this is in an academic book which surveys indian philosophy and participates directly in no discourse, and please forgive its secular nature. the chapter briefly outlines four views of time in advaita, and the fourth is especially remarkable. please excuse me for outlining words which aren't my own in such detail. i find the fourth view noteworthy because it's so intriguing. it seems to dispense with the notion that time requires a sequence. i do hope these ideas are a little interesting although they're basic. they're as follows: 1) time as a real effect of maya like space, and not a construction of the individual's mind. it's objective "in the sense in which all effects of avidya are." in this view, time has a beginning and an end. it's irrelevant to brahman and to "avidya, taken by itself." according to my limited understanding, this is the view which i'm inspired by sadananda for expressing eloquently here. please accept my grateful respect. 2) time as the relation between avidya and brahman where time is outside avidya and not co-ordinate with space. in this view, time has no beginning but then ends when avidya ends. hiriyanna has an interesting remark about this view: "further, [time] is false (mithya) because one of the relata, viz., avidya is so, and the relation between reality and appearance must necessarily be an appearance." to me, this looks quite good. 3) time identified with avidya. hiriyanna attributes this view to madhusudana sarasvati. here, time is an aspect of avidya and not identical to it. "it is the dynamic aspect of avidya. since avidya and brahman must be thought of as related so long as we reckon them as two, we should assume that this view admits that relation in *addition to* time." 4) time as an aspect of brahman itself(!) "since brahman excludes all diversity, time is to be explained as identical with it, like sat and cit. like them, it is not what characterizes brahman but is the very essence of it. that is, by time here we have to understand eternity. in the three views so far considered, it is in one sense or other connected with the principle of becoming ; here it is identical with the principle of being." (!) please excuse me for summarizing and quoting at such length, but hiriyanna expresses the common thread in these views as their desire to show how time and change are transcended in the absolute. to me, it's very fascinating to consider the fourth conception of time, which essentially is time outside change and sequence. i'm quite at a loss to understand one's achieving time coincidentally with one's achieving the principle of being. further, i'm quite at a loss to account for my seeming participation in time when time assumes the quality of this fourth view! thank you for your attention to these unworthy summaries. maxwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 Greg wrote: >At 09:08 AM 9/17/98 -0400, sadananda wrote: >> To create a time, you need first thought and then followed by the second >>thought. > >Yes, as a necessary condition, but not sufficient. If there were in >phenomenality were two thoughts, and neither one was a thought about time, >then in what sense could you say that time is? True. My discussion pertains to the necessary condition. You are right if there are series of thoughts and the series of thoughts pertain to a single phenomenon, say watching intensely a movie or reading a novel, then to that observer he is experiencing as one single event and hence loose the 'concept of ' time, until he looks up a watch - a dissimilar thought - and recognizing the time spent in that single experience, because of the watch. But if he looks up at non-time-measuring device, if that experience is intense enough to separate from his previous intense experience, he may feel that some time has gone but how much, his mind cannot tell. > >>After the second thought, the concept of time is created. > >If time is a concept, then it is not separate from the cognizing or >conceptualizing of it. My mistake. I used wrong word - 'concept of' due lack of a better word. It is dissimilar to an object thought but thought is the conceptualization of the gap. Hence people have a feel for time, but time itself is not a object - since it is a feel for the gap. How much gap - the mind has no measuring device. If no other device is available, it has to go by the somewhat chaotic biological clocks. ( those who may not be familiar, Chaos is a science of non-linear dynamics) There were some interesting experiments done to isolate a human - underground so deep that he was not aware of the physical changes outside (sun raise & set etc.) Enough food was provided and communication devices, if he needed help. He used to eat and work(workouts and study) regularly using his feeling or 'concept' of time - breakfast, lunch, dinner, sleep etc., following his biological clock. Very soon he was completely out of phase with the reference time outside. He of course developed other psychological problems due to loneliness. After 20 or 21 days, his timings were completely erratic (actually chaotic) only dictated by his biological needs. The point I am trying to make is that time indeed is an elusive quantity, not cognized as such like cognition of an object or a thought, only measurable with reference to two independent experiences. The measure of the gap between two experiences by the mind may not have any relevance to periodic measuring devices like clocks. Hence the need of those clocks. This would make it an object of cognition or >conceptualization. It might even be an object of imaginary >conceptualization, or an imaginary object of conceptualization, but in >either way it is an object. I am not sure about conceptualization of time, imaginary or real, as an object, although I agree that there is an objectification of that feeling of that thought - that objectification, not the gap - like saying - hai so much time has passed - that is a thought all right but that is not time - but that is a thought about time that recognizes that some time has gone. Here I am distinguishing the gap versus the objectification of that gap by another thought. Hence third in the sequence of creation - as a thought about the gap between the two thoughts - conceptualization or creation of the concept of time that formed between the two thoughts. >Didn't you liken time to the gap between two thoughts? If so, then it >truly is not any kind of object, it is the Absolute itself. Yes, but that Absolute is there even during the gaps or during the thought too. Like even in deep sleep when there are no thoughts. But knowledge of that Absolute during the thoughts and in between the thoughts is a different question. Hence Bhagavan Ramana is against just quietening of the mind by Praanayaama and pratyaahaara etc. since one can have ignorant quite mind which may differ from ignorant agitated mind. But ignorance remains. That the observer of the silence between the thoughts is the silence observed is the knowledge that comes from advaita. > >Another question -- if time is equivalent to the gap between two thoughts, >then what is it that tells you how long that gap was? According to this >model, there is no object present during this gap, no measuring devices, >and no other people. So what records the length of the gap? I would say >that it is subsequent thoughts arising that seem to point to this gap. >They can not really point anywhere, but the pointing and the pointed-to >occurs all within this subsequent thought. But there can't have been any >object present during the gap, but the Presence is of course there. Good question. I think mind has no measuring device to measure the gap since it is a gap. It can make a subjective judgments based on biological clocks or if it finds better periodic clocks available it can make objective judgment of that gap. Otherwise it has no measure other than some feeling based on recognition of dissimilarity between two consequent experiences. That feeling of measure is a separate thought about the time gap which is conceptualization of the gap. But mind itself has no measuring device since it is not there in that gap! Very interesting discussion - Thanks Greg. Makes me wonder about the beauty of this creation - intertwining of the time and space since both time and space are packed in that gap where there is pure awareness. Rest are all conceptualization of that gap! in the light of that awareness. >This is very interesting. (I'm still struck by the beauty of this image, >is there a citation for the passage?) I think we can agree that where >there is time, there is Krishna. We might disagree about whether time is >an appearance/object of some kind, but we probably agree that it is not >separate from Krishna in this wonderful metaphor. > >--Greg I must have it somewhere in my files, the complete song and the info of the author. I will try to find it. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 Maxwell - Thanks for sharing your thoughts and the references. No need to be apologetic, since we are all in ignorance, no one ignorant is better than other ignorant. We are all trying to help each other to get out of that ignorance. -------- >mpw6678 >1) time as a real effect of maya like space, and not a construction of the >individual's mind. it's objective "in the sense in which all effects of >avidya are." in this view, time has a beginning and an end. it's >irrelevant to brahman and to "avidya, taken by itself." according to my >limited understanding, -------------- Advaitic understanding is that the mind itself is the product of maaya and its product, time, also becomes product of maaya. Avidya and Maaya are synonyms - it is called avidya from the point of individual and maaya from the point of Iswara. Brahman is beyond all these. ---------------- >2) time as the relation between avidya and brahman where time is outside >avidya and not co-ordinate with space. in this view, time has no >beginning but then ends when avidya ends. hiriyanna has an interesting >remark about this view: "further, [time] is false (mithya) because one of >the relata, viz., avidya is so, and the relation between reality and >appearance must necessarily be an appearance." to me, this looks quite >good. ------------ I am not sure of this classification. Brahman in advaita is beyond any relation. Time falls within the avidya and avidya is defined as beginning less since time came after the first thought. Since beginning implies a concept of time and avidya was there before the time, avidya is considered as beginning less. When ignorance ends, time is seen like the rest of the creation of the mind - Brahman manifesting as varieties including time. ------------ >3) time identified with avidya. hiriyanna attributes this view to >madhusudana sarasvati. here, time is an aspect of avidya and not >identical to it. "it is the dynamic aspect of avidya. since avidya and >brahman must be thought of as related so long as we reckon them as two, we >should assume that this view admits that relation in *addition to* time." ------------- Yes the first part of the paragraph is the true advaitic picture of time. Avidya and Brahman are not related. If at all any relation, it is as a substratum of everything, including time, since there is nothing other than Brahman. Hence there are no two, one as two or many that includes time. It is relationless relationship. It appears to be there, but not there in truth. ----------------- >4) time as an aspect of brahman itself(!) "since brahman excludes all >diversity, time is to be explained as identical with it, like sat and cit. >like them, it is not what characterizes brahman but is the very essence of >it. that is, by time here we have to understand eternity. in the three >views so far considered, it is in one sense or other connected with the >principle of becoming ; here it is identical with the principle of being." >(!) -------------- Actually Brahman transcends all concepts including the concept of time. When one identifies Brahman with the creative power, Iswara, then the time concept comes as the Iswarya of the Iswara, or glory of the Iswara and he becomes Mayaavi or the wielder of Maaya. > >maxwell. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 >"y viswanath" <yviswanath > >Dear Sadananda, > >Before embarking on the exercise of whether time is composed of one or >two thoughts we need to understand how we think. What we normally >understand to be a single thought is often 2, 3, or hundred thoughts >below the surface. It is now 12.30 and the thought "I must have lunch" >arises. Most people understand this to be a single thought. Yet there >are several thoughts associated with lunch, and the notion of 'I' has >probably hundreds of thoughts. Which is why some people have said that >the 'I' is time, and when the 'I' ends so does time. Now every thought >arises to this 'I'. Therefore, fundamentally thoughts arise two or more >at a time. Your theories of physics are not disturbed. > > >Regards, > >---Viswanath Sri Viswanath, thanks for your input. True we jump from one thought to the other without coming down. There is a beautiful analogy. In kerala, there are long beatle-nut trees (I think) and the fellow who goes up to pick the nuts does not come down - he swings from one tree to the next without landing first on the ground. Thus we swing from one thought to the other. This is one of the basis of the Japa yoga - one thought is repeated again and again with Om! in between. One has to come down between the thoughts. If one observes the thoughts as well as the gap between the thoughts, then the observer of the silence between the thoughts is the silence observed. Since there is nothing to observe, but observer is still there, I am as the observer remains. When one learns to shift his attention from the observed to the observer, the understanding that I am the observer and not the observed remains even when the thoughts arise. You are right, so many thoughts flood every time, it is difficult to stand apart and observe. Hence the basis for all yogas is to quieten the mind with unnecessary thoughts since most of them are - I and mine - ahankaara and mamakaara - thoughts. We all agree that time and space and everything else that falls within the time and space are essential arise because of the mind. But taking that illusion as real is the delusion due to the ignorance taking object as a subject, I. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 ************** sadananda <sada > >>After the second thought, the concept of time is created. > >If time is a concept, then it is not separate from the cognizing or >conceptualizing of it. My mistake. I used wrong word - 'concept of' due lack of a better word. It is dissimilar to an object thought but thought is the conceptualization of the gap. Hence people have a feel for time, but time itself is not a object - since it is a feel for the gap. How much gap - the mind has no measuring device. If no other device is available, it has to go by the somewhat chaotic biological clocks. ( those who may not be familiar, Chaos is a science of non-linear dynamics) There were some interesting experiments done to isolate a human - underground so deep that he was not aware of the physical changes outside (sun raise & set etc.) Enough food was provided and communication devices, if he needed help. He used to eat and work(workouts and study) regularly using his feeling or 'concept' of time - breakfast, lunch, dinner, sleep etc., following his biological clock. Very soon he was completely out of phase with the reference time outside. He of course developed other psychological problems due to loneliness. After 20 or 21 days, his timings were completely erratic (actually chaotic) only dictated by his biological needs. The point I am trying to make is that time indeed is an elusive quantity, not cognized as such like cognition of an object or a thought, only measurable with reference to two independent experiences. The measure of the gap between two experiences by the mind may not have any relevance to periodic measuring devices like clocks. Hence the need of those clocks. ******************* Namaste. I am a new member of the list and enjoy very much reading the discussions, although sometimes I got entangled in terminology. I have some rather biological comments on biological clock mentioned above. The phenomenon of the clock is a hot topic in biology now, although it is little off my field. The biological clock appears to be tightly regulated, and I would not call it chaotic. Usually the clock is ajusted to the light/dark cycle of the day/night, but in unusual circumstances like in a cave, the means of this ajustement were lost. But clock did not become completely erratic. Instead, the period of the clock was changed from normal 24 hours to 48 hours but it remained periodic. I am not sure to which extent the cognition of the time was changed in such a person, since spotless experiment is not possible, and a person always have some means of referring to 'periodic measuring devices', less accurate than clock may be - like periodic breathing and heartbeat. Sorry for off-topic intrusion! Lilia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 >Lilia Stepanova <ls691035 > > > >Namaste. >I am a new member of the list and enjoy very much reading the >discussions, although sometimes I got entangled in terminology. > >I have some rather biological comments on biological clock mentioned >above. The phenomenon of the clock is a hot topic in biology now, >although it is little off my field. The biological clock appears to be >tightly regulated, and I would not call it chaotic. Usually the clock is >ajusted to the light/dark cycle of the day/night, but in unusual >circumstances like in a cave, the means of this ajustement were lost. But >clock did not become completely erratic. Instead, the period of the >clock was changed from normal 24 hours to 48 hours but it remained >periodic. I am not sure to which extent the cognition of the time was >changed in such a person, since spotless experiment is not possible, and >a person always have some means of referring to 'periodic measuring >devices', less accurate than clock may be - like periodic breathing and >heartbeat. > >Sorry for off-topic intrusion! > >Lilia Welcome for the discussions. Feel free to parcipate. You are right. About the biological clocks. I was referring to the article I think it came out few years ago in Times magazine. Question -the Biological clocks - do they remain periodic because there was some indirect interaction with clocks or atleast sun raises or the lighting devices etc. Are they intrinsic mechanisms to keep them periodic like 48 hours a day. Just a question. I know they use intensive light beam on to the eye-lids to overcome jet lag etc. to change the bio-cycle - particularly sleeping cycle. But if there is no such interaction, would the biological clock remain periodic. Breathing and heartbeat I can see. but other physiological functions, particularly where mind gets involved actively. In the particular experiment, the heat beat supposed to have slowed down, but breathing was as periodic as aperiodic as normal. Thanks for the inf.. I am not a biologist but just out of curiosity. K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, sadananda wrote: > sadananda <sada > > >Lilia Stepanova <ls691035 > > > > > > > >Namaste. > >I am a new member of the list and enjoy very much reading the > >discussions, although sometimes I got entangled in terminology. > > > >I have some rather biological comments on biological clock mentioned > >above. The phenomenon of the clock is a hot topic in biology now, > >although it is little off my field. The biological clock appears to be > >tightly regulated, and I would not call it chaotic. Usually the clock is > >ajusted to the light/dark cycle of the day/night, but in unusual > >circumstances like in a cave, the means of this ajustement were lost. But > >clock did not become completely erratic. Instead, the period of the > >clock was changed from normal 24 hours to 48 hours but it remained > >periodic. I am not sure to which extent the cognition of the time was > >changed in such a person, since spotless experiment is not possible, and > >a person always have some means of referring to 'periodic measuring > >devices', less accurate than clock may be - like periodic breathing and > >heartbeat. > > > >Sorry for off-topic intrusion! > > > >Lilia > > Welcome for the discussions. Feel free to parcipate. > > You are right. About the biological clocks. > > I was referring to the article I think it came out few years ago in Times > magazine. > > Question -the Biological clocks - do they remain periodic because there was > some indirect interaction with clocks or atleast sun raises or the lighting > devices etc. Are they intrinsic mechanisms to keep them periodic like 48 > hours a day. Just a question. Here are several mechanisms to ensure biological clock periodicity. The mechanisms are pretty well the same from fly to human, and relate to periodical specific protein expression in the brain. Interestingly, all these proteins are 'masters' - they regulate many proteins and functions, most of which are still unknown. Here are both light dependent and light independet mechanisms. What makes light independent clocks to tick - no one knows so far. The cave experiment just confirms the existence of such clock with periodicity greater than 24 hours although involved only few people. Similar result (cycle more than 24 h) was with blind subjects, but they were not isolated completely to exclude social cues to tune their clocks. > I know they use intensive light beam on to the eye-lids to overcome jet lag > etc. to change the bio-cycle - particularly sleeping cycle. > > But if there is no such interaction, would the biological clock remain > periodic. Breathing and heartbeat I can see. but other physiological > functions, particularly where mind gets involved actively. It looks like periodicity remains even in absence of light/social activity interactions. 'Less periodic' periodicity is easy to track in most physiological functions, although it may be less pronounced than explicitly periodic functions like breathing. If you have to stand, you will probably transfer weight from one leg to another periodically because they will periodically get tired. A person periodically gets hungry, periodically changes the position during the sleep, periodically goes to sleep probably because the supply of certain critical neurotransmitter nesessary for brain activity gets exosted and requires some time to replenish itself during the sleep. You can modulate these processes at your will, if you pay attention, but not indefinitely. > In the particular experiment, the heat beat supposed to have slowed down, > but breathing was as periodic as aperiodic as normal. > > Thanks for the inf.. I am not a biologist but just out of curiosity. I am feeling like trying to dissect the gopies instead of watching their dance... like science does or rather tries to do and ends always dissecting something else and making the gopies laugh! But is not it a noble achivement to make them happy? Lilia > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > > > ------ > Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or > service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit > /advert.html for more information. > ------ > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 1998 Report Share Posted September 19, 1998 Sadananda wrote: >>mpw6678 >>4) time as an aspect of brahman itself(!) "since brahman excludes all >>diversity, time is to be explained as identical with it, like sat and cit. >>like them, it is not what characterizes brahman but is the very essence of >>it. that is, by time here we have to understand eternity. in the three >>views so far considered, it is in one sense or other connected with the >>principle of becoming ; here it is identical with the principle of being." >>(!) >-------------- >Actually Brahman transcends all concepts including the concept of time. >When one identifies Brahman with the creative power, Iswara, then the time >concept comes as the Iswarya of the Iswara, or glory of the Iswara and he >becomes Mayaavi or the wielder of Maaya. We may call this fourth type of time, which has neither beginning nor end, Duration or Kala. It is the one eternity that we can not divide or set up landmarks therein, and is analogous to Space as abstraction. Both Duration and Space may said to be aspects of the Absolute. And because this state exists, knowledge of the past and future is possible for ones who reach it in their Samadhi. Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.