Guest guest Posted September 17, 1998 Report Share Posted September 17, 1998 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 1998 Report Share Posted September 17, 1998 At 09:08 AM 9/17/98 -0400, sadananda wrote: >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. Sadananda, Yes, it is usually proven in Western philosophy as well that time, to be measured, requires at least two physical objects, one of them moving with respect to the other. Let's say it is imaginary, not a physical object, never observed itself, only the measuring devices are actually observed. Let's say it is an imaginary entity like the square root of negative 1. It is still, however, an imaginary object, an object of cognition or imagination. In this case it is a thought or an appearance. > 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. Last sentence, agreed! > In the present there is no time >since it requires two to define time. Agreed! >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. Agreed! > 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? >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. 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. >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. Totally agree. >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. 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. Now, Atmanada, unlike classical advaitains, likens deep sleep to the gap between thoughts, and not as a state of the jiva or prajna. In this respect, both gaps are totally featureless. This is often the same as any other pure experience, as you say, in the interesting story. The story only reappears after we are no longer totally captivated by it. 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. >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. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 At 08:43 AM 9/18/98 -0400, 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. This is perhaps off the subject, but it rang a bell for me... We have a native ability to intuit time and space (Immanuel Kant said time and space are the forms of intuition, not their content). So in Advaita Vedanta, the distinction between time and space is used in teaching the prakriyas of the three states and the 5 sheaths. Namely, for the subtle body and the dreamer taijasa, and in the subtle world hiranyagarbha, there is time but no space. But for the waker and in the gross world virat, there is both time and space. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 1998 Report Share Posted September 18, 1998 >>At 09:08 AM 9/17/98 -0400, sadananda wrote: >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. Yes, a vague feeling might arise that some time went by, and your discussion of the biological expereriments adds to this -- that a very subtle feeling might arise that time has passed: >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. Yes, time is elusive, and may arise as the most subtle of impulses, feelings, intuitions, thoughts, etc. And like you say, it doesn't always arise from the movement of "external" measuring devices. What I was trying to say, not too clearly in the last couple of posts, is that time is part of phenomenality. That is, time, or anything else, say a mathematical equation, is either (a) something that appears in Consciousness, or (b) That *to which* it appears, which would be Consciousness Itself. Time seems to fall under (a), not (b). No matter how subtle or sublime its appearance may be, biological, intellectual, intuitive or imaginative, time is not the substratum, but something that appears on it/to it. And of course, ultimately, from the Absolute perspective, all (a) is (b).... >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. Good distinction -- it is important to keep in mind the difference between the gap, which is not an object, and the conceptualization of the gap, which is an object! In Tibetan Buddhism, it is taught that the mind moves 64 times a second, and the passage of these mind states is the basis of time.... >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. My pleasure! The beauty of all this is quite compelling to contemplate, strikes me as a manifestation from the gap, in a totally wondrous and miraculous way. --Greg 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: >Greg wrote: >>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! There were certain nights that before plunging into deep sleep I set up my mind to be awake at four in the morning and waked up at the precise moment. There should be some activities going on during the *gap* rather than biological clocks or external cue from environment that waked me up. This gap is unconscious state only because we can not recall its activities when we wake up. There are reports that in some cases of patients under general anaesthesia, they still had some awareness and were able to communicate but after the operation could not recall anything. The presence of REM activities during sleep also indicates that everyone of us have a few dreams each night though only few recall it. Is it not likely that our higher Self use other of our bodies than the physical one as its vehicle of consciousness during Svapna and Shushupti, its hours of complete freedom, and become an actor in the drama that our physical brain can but partially register and recall nothing in the morning? No gap at all. Regards, Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 1998 Report Share Posted September 21, 1998 >Lilia Stepanova <ls691035 Thanks Lilia for taking time and explaining some of the beauties of creation. I look at it not dissecting gopies but admiring the beauties of Gopies, even if it is the reflected beauty of the Lord. The more I dissect, the more He reveals the majesty of Himself. Since I cannot see the Lord directly, I can still enjoy His beauty by looking at His beautiful reflections. Mind cannot comprehend the absolute beauty, but He is revealing himself though these intricate laws and order, man is yet to grasp their depth. The whole of B.G 10th chapter extols his vibhuties, his beautiful manifestations. Being a scientist and not an artist, I enjoy science, as it reveals the beauty of the order in the universe and makes me marvel at His creations and reminds me that He is not only inside but outside too. 'antarbahischa tat sarvam vyaapya naarayaNa sthitaH|' - says Naarayana suktam. Lord Naraayana pervades both inside and outside. The intricate mechanisms of the body, a simple first size soft pump that works continuously, day in and day out, non-stop for years and years, whether we are awake or asleep; complex neural network system, even the awesome fluid distribution system that carries nutrients to every cell in the body so efficiently that we, the apparent owner of the body are not even aware of, the digestive system that function in exact sequence, inspite of the junk that we dump in - My God - I can go on looking at his awesome design - Krishna says: aham vaishvaanaro bhUtvA praNinAm dehamAshritaH| praNApAna samAyuktaH pachAmyannam caturvidham|| Essentially Krishna says I am the one who is behind all these involuntary activities of the body, taking the example of the digesting process; and we of course take all these as if granted, and we own it. Without His help, we will be reduced to nothing. I cannot but express my gratitude to my teacher who opened my eyes to see at least a speck of His beauty and His intelligent design in everything, we call as science. Hari Om! Sadananda >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1998 Report Share Posted September 29, 1998 An interesting article on "Time in the Indian Tradition" is available at http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/SPR/wissen/Sudarsha/g_sud1.htm And for the sanskritists "The Relation between Sanskrit and Indian Concepts of Time" is available at http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/hypertext/landow/post/india/indphil1.html Regards, Charles. 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.