Time and Space

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In order to jump-start this list again, I'd like to pose a question.

From the Advaitic point of view, are time and space equally unreal,

or is one more unreal than the other?

 

Personally, I think space is more unreal than time. Space seems to

me clearly an illusion like a holographic projection. The space we

see in a dream is proved to be unreal when we awaken, so the space of

the waking state is seen to be equally unreal.

 

However, time seems to endure under all circumstances, whenever there

is consciousness. I cannot imagine consciousness without time. Even

if all space where to disappear, it seems to me that time would

remain. Time seems inseparable from the I-feeling. Wherever there

is 'I' there is time.

 

Yet some would say that even time is in some sense a concept of the

mind and therefore tainted with maya. Pure Consciousness is even

beyond time...

 

So maybe this question can get us back to thinking cosmic, vedic

thoughts, which we should be doing anyway!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Let me start my answer by saying that the action of 'jump-start' is

certainly not real!

>From the advaitic point of view, our 'two eyes' are unreal and the

question which eye is more unreal than the other becomes irrelevant.

Similary, space and time represent two dimensions of the unrealities

and the question on the relative magnitude of unreality is

irrelevant. In the vedanta, role of intellect is to 'discriminate'

between the 'real' and 'unreal.' If the discriminating intellect

attempts to analyze the two unrealities, it is likely trapped

without a resolution even after spending infinite time and using the

infinite space filled with words.

 

As advaitins, we should focus and discriminate between 'real and

unreal,' 'permanant and transient' and 'wisdom and knowledge.' If we

learn to detach from unreal, transient and knowledge, we will be

able to attain the wisdom and recognize the real permanantly1

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> In order to jump-start this list again, I'd like to pose a

question.

> From the Advaitic point of view, are time and space equally

unreal,

> or is one more unreal than the other?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

Time is our creation. We measure time based on the changes we see around us.

Without change there cannot be time. As far as reality is concerned, what we

see is indeed CHANGE with SPACE as its backdrop. No one can see time as it

is created in our minds. For example, when we wake up in the morning, we are

not aware of the exact time until we look for a change in sky to determine

the time of the day. Even clocks are synchronized with the change. Therefore

space has an empirical reality. What we call time, is indeed change.

 

Kathirasan

 

 

Benjamin [orion777ben]

Monday, May 24, 2004 10:40 PM

advaitin

Time and Space

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

In order to jump-start this list again, I'd like to pose a question.

From the Advaitic point of view, are time and space equally unreal,

or is one more unreal than the other?

 

Personally, I think space is more unreal than time. Space seems to

me clearly an illusion like a holographic projection. The space we

see in a dream is proved to be unreal when we awaken, so the space of

the waking state is seen to be equally unreal.

 

However, time seems to endure under all circumstances, whenever there

is consciousness. I cannot imagine consciousness without time. Even

if all space where to disappear, it seems to me that time would

remain. Time seems inseparable from the I-feeling. Wherever there

is 'I' there is time.

 

Yet some would say that even time is in some sense a concept of the

mind and therefore tainted with maya. Pure Consciousness is even

beyond time...

 

So maybe this question can get us back to thinking cosmic, vedic

thoughts, which we should be doing anyway!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages

Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

Dear Kathirasan Ji:

>>>> Therefore space has an empirical reality. What we call time, is

indeed change.

<<<<<

 

Suppose one accepts this, then if there is no change then time should

stand still? Is that possible ?

 

For example: Gold has no oxides, unlike other metals thus does not

change. (99.9999 Gold will always remain the same regardless of

time, which is our arbirtary measure).

 

All we can possibly say is God has not changed through time (as a

measue).

 

Just a thought !!

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Benjaminji,

>

> Time is our creation. We measure time based on the changes we see

around us.

> Without change there cannot be time. As far as reality is

concerned, what we

> see is indeed CHANGE with SPACE as its backdrop. No one can see

time as it

> is created in our minds. For example, when we wake up in the

morning, we are

> not aware of the exact time until we look for a change in sky to

determine

> the time of the day. Even clocks are synchronized with the change.

Therefore

> space has an empirical reality. What we call time, is indeed

change.

>

> Kathirasan

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr-ji,

 

<<Suppose one accepts this, then if there is no change then time should

stand still? Is that possible ? >>

 

Yes. We have already given an independent existence to Time. But what I am

trying to convey is that Time depends on Change. Therefore, Time exists in

our mind while change exists as an empirical reality. Time is not

perceptible. We only perceive change.

 

When we say Brahman is Nitya or Satyam (Eternal), what we are implying is

only this Changelessness (nirvikara). Nothing else.

 

Kathirasan

 

ymoharir [ymoharir]

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:27 AM

advaitin

Re: Time and Space

 

 

Dear Kathirasan Ji:

>>>> Therefore space has an empirical reality. What we call time, is

indeed change.

<<<<<

 

Suppose one accepts this, then if there is no change then time should

stand still? Is that possible ?

 

For example: Gold has no oxides, unlike other metals thus does not

change. (99.9999 Gold will always remain the same regardless of

time, which is our arbirtary measure).

 

All we can possibly say is God has not changed through time (as a

measue).

 

Just a thought !!

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Benjaminji,

>

> Time is our creation. We measure time based on the changes we see

around us.

> Without change there cannot be time. As far as reality is

concerned, what we

> see is indeed CHANGE with SPACE as its backdrop. No one can see

time as it

> is created in our minds. For example, when we wake up in the

morning, we are

> not aware of the exact time until we look for a change in sky to

determine

> the time of the day. Even clocks are synchronized with the change.

Therefore

> space has an empirical reality. What we call time, is indeed

change.

>

> Kathirasan

>

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages

Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Time and Space are both unreal (non-self). i.e they are created by the Maya.

 

Just for the sake of curiosity and speculation and to help ourself understand

the unreality better, this question (which of the two is more real ?) is good

one.

 

Anything that is non-self can be expalined by physics.

time is more un-real than space.

 

what is time ? time is nothing but the travel of electromagnetic energy through

space.

electromagnectic energy is always moving at constant speed irrespective of the

speed of observer. This causes the eperience of time.

 

If the electromagnetic energy somehow stands still....everything in universe

will stand still and there will be no time. This happens or not, we cannot ever

detect it.

 

So time is wholly a product of travel of electromagnetic energy through space.

 

hope i have not confused you with my physics concepts.

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins:

 

Benji has asked a good question and Ramji, Yaduji, Kathirasanji and

Vishalji have given good explanations. To add my two cents worth of

common-sense to the discussion:

 

Time is the separation between two events.

 

Space is the separation between two objects.

 

Space cannot be without time, as events, separated by time, have to

necessarily take place in space – both mental or outside between

which there is really no boundary so to say.

 

Time cannot be without space, as the objects that constitute an event

(mental vrittis incuded as they are also objectifiable) have to

necessarily exist in time.

 

Therefore, time cannot be without space and space without time, as

objects have no relevance without events and events cannot be without

objects.

 

Modern physics is therefore right in treating both together as space-

time continuum.

 

There is therefore no question of relative `reality' or `unreality'

between the two.

 

Time and space are the two faces of the same coin and that coin is

the advaitic error we call adhyAsA. Call it mAyA too - the magic

which our Chittranjanji elaborated earlier here.

 

As an observer, as long as I am charmed and deluded by the magic and

experience events and objects as real, the error continues giving me

an unfortunate feeling of separation and isolation.

 

When the error is irreversibly removed, space-time continuum is then

rightly 'seen' as abiding in the fullness or the one-and-only-oneness

that I am removing my isolation.

 

That cannot be an `experience' in the normal sense, as experience as

an event then cannot be.

 

I therefore know that I am both spacelessness and timelessness when

the erroneous isolation is undone. The two terms mean the same.

 

That is all what advaita is endeavouring to affirm again and again

through shruti.

 

That is why the pUrNamadah… verse we are discussing.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Personally, I think space is more unreal than time. Space seems to

> me clearly an illusion like a holographic projection. The space we

> see in a dream is proved to be unreal when we awaken, so the space

of

> the waking state is seen to be equally unreal.

>

 

My feeling is that the sense of Space and Time are always found

to appear together, both in waking as well as dream states. Dream

space is found to be unreal when we wake up. But so is dream time.

The dream space and dream time have the same order of reality to

the dreamer ( ie. the same order of unreality to the waker).

 

> However, time seems to endure under all circumstances, whenever

there

> is consciousness. I cannot imagine consciousness without time.

Even

> if all space where to disappear, it seems to me that time would

> remain. Time seems inseparable from the I-feeling. Wherever there

> is 'I' there is time.

 

As Madathilji, Vishalji etc. pointed out, passage of time can be

known only in terms of change in space. To use Madhyamikan

terminology, Time and Space are dependent-originating. They appear

together, and disappear together.

Deep sleep state is an example where there is no experience of

space. And there is no experience of time either. You cannot have one

without the other.

>

> Yet some would say that even time is in some sense a concept of the

> mind and therefore tainted with maya. Pure Consciousness is even

> beyond time...

>

 

Rightly so.

> So maybe this question can get us back to thinking cosmic, vedic

> thoughts, which we should be doing anyway!

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> In order to jump-start this list again, I'd like to pose a

> question. From the Advaitic point of view, are time and

> space equally unreal, or is one more unreal than the other?

> ........

> So maybe this question can get us back to thinking cosmic, vedic

> thoughts, which we should be doing anyway!

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

>From the Advaitic point of view, space and time are spoken of as time

and space should be spoken of -- as the meanings conferred to the

words "space" and "time".

 

The English word "space" as used today equivocates on two different

meanings, the one being the meaning of the word "aether" and the

other being the meaning of the word "space". Aether is the equivalent

of the Sanskrit Akasha. Akasha is not merely space, but "space" that

is impartite and pervasive through and through this universe. Space,

on the other hand, is an adjunct to akasha. Thus, there may be space

in the room or there may be no space in the room dependeing on

whether there are other objects in the room. When a room is full of

objects, we say there is no space, and when the room is empty we say

that there is space. Space has the connotation of "emptiness from

objects", whereas akasha is that aether that pervades all objects and

open spaces. There has been in the historical human consciousness a

loss of the meaning of the word "aether", and over a period of time,

it has come to mean "a kind of matter that fills space". It is this

meaning that drove scientists to look for aether as "matter that

fills space" in the aftermath of the paradoxical results of the

Michaelson-Morley experiment. But all the efforts of the scientists

to find this matter (that filled space) met with failure. For aether

is not a matter that fills space, it is the pervasive space itself as

a material thing. It is a substance (a thing seen as existing).

Akasha is an object for it is a maha-bhuta, the first of the

primordial elements. Matter itself is what matters to the Self - it

is not merely the "concrete objects" of the world, but all objects to

which thought and senses are directed. There are sensory objects and

there are non-sensory objects, and akasha is a sensory object in that

it is sensed through its attribute sound. Akasha is the material out

of which the world of sensory objects is made. In the language of

parinama, all other things are evolutes of akasha, and in the

language of vivartavada, they are akasha itself as differentiated by

name.

 

Time, like space, is a substance. Its attributes are the past,

present and future. Time is not a sensory object; it is the object of

the cognising witness both when it cognises with or without the aid

of the senses. Even though nothing is seen when in deep sleep, we

still cognise on waking up that time has passed. Time is prior to

space in the scheme of creation, because it is after a kalpa of sleep

that Brahma manifests space and the rest again.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Even though nothing is seen when in deep sleep, we still cognise on waking

up that time has passed.

 

praNAms

Hare krishna

 

As Sri Rajkumar Nair prabhuji said, both space & time are relative & have

dependent reality (avalambita satyatva) in the respective realms of waker

& dreamer. In deep sleep there is no time nor space, we are there in our

true nature Anandamaya (mAndukya shruti - mantra -5) which is beyond space

& time (dEsha & kAla) (reference shankara bhAshya on this mantra). The

congnisance of the waking hours & its continuity can only happen to jIva

who *thinks* he has awaken to the waking world from deep sleep (vaiSvAnara,

the experiencer of the gross - reference mAndukya shruti 3) . But in

sushupti avastha, prAjnA who is in the state of one mass of consciousness

(prajnAna ghana) does not experience neither time nor space.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr Benjamin,

Pardon me , I am just a scant user of this forum, though I enjoy the various

discussions that go on. I think that both these are just concepts useful in day

to day life , in order to make sense of causal relationships between events,

part of developing a world view explicable by reason.

I am not very clear about consciousness other than there is a thought process

felt by me, where the thinking entity, myself ,would be described by"cogito ergo

sum". At this point I am quite disgusted by religion as a whole but that is more

to do with the symptoms; namely the things that mankind does in its name.

Space seems to be more real to me as the lack of matter is visible, though time

seems to be more defined by the sequence of events that make rational sense,

more by the development of empirical logic. Heaven knows if I am making any

sense to the learned people who contribute to this board, but those are my

thoughts,

Humbly yours

 

Rakesh Krishnan

Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

In order to jump-start this list again, I'd like to pose a question.

>From the Advaitic point of view, are time and space equally unreal,

or is one more unreal than the other?

 

Personally, I think space is more unreal than time. Space seems to

me clearly an illusion like a holographic projection. The space we

see in a dream is proved to be unreal when we awaken, so the space of

the waking state is seen to be equally unreal.

 

However, time seems to endure under all circumstances, whenever there

is consciousness. I cannot imagine consciousness without time. Even

if all space where to disappear, it seems to me that time would

remain. Time seems inseparable from the I-feeling. Wherever there

is 'I' there is time.

 

Yet some would say that even time is in some sense a concept of the

mind and therefore tainted with maya. Pure Consciousness is even

beyond time...

 

So maybe this question can get us back to thinking cosmic, vedic

thoughts, which we should be doing anyway!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Kathirasan-ji,

Some people define life and death in terms of change, what is living changes

what is dead does not. Do we know for a fact that God does not change? Since the

Almighty is not observable by the Indriyas, perhaps we may wonder about that.

What if he is changing at such a rate that our Indriyas cannot even detect or

even comprehend it?

Just some thoughts again and I request your pardon in advance, in case I have

unwittingly offended you.

Rakesh Krishnan

 

K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir wrote:

Namaste Dr-ji,

 

<<Suppose one accepts this, then if there is no change then time should

stand still? Is that possible ? >>

 

Yes. We have already given an independent existence to Time. But what I am

trying to convey is that Time depends on Change. Therefore, Time exists in

our mind while change exists as an empirical reality. Time is not

perceptible. We only perceive change.

 

When we say Brahman is Nitya or Satyam (Eternal), what we are implying is

only this Changelessness (nirvikara). Nothing else.

 

Kathirasan

 

ymoharir [ymoharir]

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 11:27 AM

advaitin

Re: Time and Space

 

 

Dear Kathirasan Ji:

>>>> Therefore space has an empirical reality. What we call time, is

indeed change.

<<<<<

 

Suppose one accepts this, then if there is no change then time should

stand still? Is that possible ?

 

For example: Gold has no oxides, unlike other metals thus does not

change. (99.9999 Gold will always remain the same regardless of

time, which is our arbirtary measure).

 

All we can possibly say is God has not changed through time (as a

measue).

 

Just a thought !!

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Benjaminji,

>

> Time is our creation. We measure time based on the changes we see

around us.

> Without change there cannot be time. As far as reality is

concerned, what we

> see is indeed CHANGE with SPACE as its backdrop. No one can see

time as it

> is created in our minds. For example, when we wake up in the

morning, we are

> not aware of the exact time until we look for a change in sky to

determine

> the time of the day. Even clocks are synchronized with the change.

Therefore

> space has an empirical reality. What we call time, is indeed

change.

>

> Kathirasan

>

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages

Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittranjanji.

 

Your post is really thought-provoking. Think I did, therefore, which

resulted in the following doubts/questions inserted in brackets :

>

> From the Advaitic point of view, space and time are spoken of as

time

> and space should be spoken of -- as the meanings conferred to the

> words "space" and "time".

 

[i didn't quite understand you here. Will please elaborate the import

of this opening remark of yours?]

 

> The English word "space" as used today equivocates on two different

> meanings, the one being the meaning of the word "aether" and the

> other being the meaning of the word "space". Aether is the

equivalent

> of the Sanskrit Akasha. Akasha is not merely space, but "space"

that

> is impartite and pervasive through and through this universe.

 

[i am sure Benji used the word space to mean the impartite and

pervasive entity.]

 

 

Space,

> on the other hand, is an adjunct to akasha. Thus, there may be

space

> in the room or there may be no space in the room dependeing on

> whether there are other objects in the room. When a room is full of

> objects, we say there is no space, and when the room is empty we

say

> that there is space.

 

 

[That is just linguistic convenience. We do know that space as

AkAsha pervades even matter as inter-molecular space.]

 

Space has the connotation of "emptiness from

> objects", whereas akasha is that aether that pervades all objects

and

> open spaces.

 

[Let us visualize a situation where there is only me without any

objects. When I say 'objects', all that are objectified are

naturally included. Will there be time then? Time, I suppose, will

then be naturally done. Isn't that the relevance of space-time

continuum where both space and time are conceived as existing

inseparably together as the two faces of the same coin like I said

before? Isn't that 'situation', my aloneness, the advaitic oneness

and the highway to reaching it our vEdAntik neti neti of all that are

objectified in space-time continuum?]

 

 

There has been in the historical human consciousness a

> loss of the meaning of the word "aether", and over a period of

time,

> it has come to mean "a kind of matter that fills space".

 

[You are absolutely right. In fact, when they used the word ether

first, they meant it to mean matter that filled emptiness. They

overlooked the fact that, even then, the idea of emptiness remained.]

 

 

It is this

> meaning that drove scientists to look for aether as "matter that

> fills space" in the aftermath of the paradoxical results of the

> Michaelson-Morley experiment. But all the efforts of the scientists

> to find this matter (that filled space) met with failure. For

aether

> is not a matter that fills space, it is the pervasive space itself

as

> a material thing. It is a substance (a thing seen as existing).

 

[Well, space is 'seen' as existing only in relation to the existence

of objects. Space needs the existence of objects to make its

presence felt. That is why I requested you to visualize a 'no-

object' situation.]

 

> Akasha is an object for it is a maha-bhuta, the first of the

> primordial elements.

 

[Yes. It is a mahA-bhUta. But, why do you call it the first? Is it

because the others (earth, air, fire and water) cannot have relevance

without space? But, aren't these, either singly or in combination,

as objects, that impart meaning to space?]

 

 

Matter itself is what matters to the Self - it

> is not merely the "concrete objects" of the world, but all objects

to

> which thought and senses are directed. There are sensory objects

and

> there are non-sensory objects, and akasha is a sensory object in

that

> it is sensed through its attribute sound.

 

[What about outer-space where sound cannot have passage? Rightly,

isn't it light through which AkAsha is sensed? When I say light I

mean the Sanskrit prakAsha which has a different shade of meaning

like the difference you pointed out about mere space and AkAsha. We

touched on this subject during our discussion on "Is there light in

enlightenment?" last September, when we built on some thought-

provoking ideas contributed by Anandaji.]

 

.......>

> Time, like space, is a substance. Its attributes are the past,

> present and future. Time is not a sensory object; it is the object

of

> the cognising witness both when it cognises with or without the aid

> of the senses. Even though nothing is seen when in deep sleep, we

> still cognise on waking up that time has passed.

 

[is it time that is cognized on waking? I think it is my 'timeless'

existence untainted by the tyrranny of time in sleep that is

cognized. They call it pratyabhigna. In the waking world tyrrannized

by time, I get the misimpression that it is time that is cognized.]

 

 

[Anyway, I am glad Benji's jump-starting is working very well.]

 

............>

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rakeshji.

 

You said time makes rational sense.

 

Well, let me revisit an idea expressed by me on this forum long

before. In fact, it is not mine. I remember I picked it from one of

Dr. Hoyle's works. Or was it Dr. Hoyle? I am not too sure! That is

not really important here,

 

Let us visualize consciousness, as you know it, as a light that

blinks in a pigeon-hole cabinet - the sort of thing used in Indian

post offices to sort out mail addressed to various destinations. Let

us suppose that our cabinet has one hundred holes. It can be of

infinite number, but, for convenience, let us limit the number to

just hundred. When the light blinks in hole # 1, the contents therein

are highlighted. When it blinks in two, a summary of # 1 and the

contents of #2 are shone on. Thus, when it blinks in say # 66, the

gyst of 1 to 65 and the contents of 66 are made visible.

 

Is there any reason or justification for us to demand that the light

should light in a 'rational' sequence of 1, 2,3 and so on? I don't

think we have. It can light in 99 when I would be living my old age

and then blink back in 10 which represents my boyhood. In

one 'second' (quotation marks deliberately inserted to suggest the

absurdity of sequential time), I might be on my death-bed and in

the 'next' in that elementary school class-room with my hated maths

teacher!

 

The cabinet is infinite. The light flickers on. Where it should

flicker is not in my control. I have no say over it. Perhaps, in the

middle of writing this, I don't know how many times I went back to

that much hated teacher of mine and how many times I 'died'.

 

You made sense to me. Now, my worry is if I am.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, Rakesh Krishnan

> Space seems to be more real to me as the lack of matter is visible,

though time seems to be more defined by the sequence of events that

make rational sense, more by the development of empirical logic.

Heaven knows if I am making any sense to the learned people who

contribute to this board, but those are my thoughts,

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

..............

> Time, like space, is a substance. Its attributes are the past,

> present and future. Time is not a sensory object; it is the object of

> the cognising witness both when it cognises with or without the aid

> of the senses. Even though nothing is seen when in deep sleep, we

> still cognise on waking up that time has passed. Time is prior to

> space in the scheme of creation, because it is after a kalpa of sleep

> that Brahma manifests space and the rest again.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

Chittaranjaji

Pranaams.

I enjoyed reading your write-up on space and time . Here is my

understanding in relation to your last paragraph quoted above. My

understanding may be somewhat parallel to Nair's.

 

In the order of creation as stated in the Upanishads, I am not aware of

any mention of the 'time' as product of creation for it to be substance

like 'space'. ( May be Shree Sunder can tell us exactly - see Sunder

your services are invaluable!). The reason is obvious - the creation

itself involves a beginning, where the concept of time is already

predisposed. In principle then, the 'time' concept should be before the

creation started - what was there before creation is only 'existence' as

stated in 'sadeva smouya idam agram asiit'- and that existence cannot

undergo a change - 'concept of time' is not there. 'anaadi'

-beginningless and 'anirvachaniiyam' - inexplicable - can only be

description less descriptors that can be valid to describe 'time'. I

have to differ in your description of time as 'substance' like space and

attributes of past-present-future. I must say non-sensual experience of

‘time’ by saakshii or witnessing consciousness is a concept of

non-advaitic theories. I do not think that is an advaitic understanding

unless one understands that the concept of ‘saakshii' is only a notional

with the mind present.

 

Actually to 'define' time (that is why I used the word 'concept of

time') I need two entities - past and future since present is an

imaginary line where past meets the future. Neither the past nor the

future has any bearing on the existence - 'sat' -, that which is

substantive of all creation, from space on. If one says that it is

attributive definition (all definitions are of that type only) for time

(as past, present and future - as attributes), there is no problem in

that except that in all the objective definitions the existence is the

very substantive while as I have shown above for 'time' - existence

cannot be substantive - Hence I feel that 'time' is only a conceptual

definition relative to the concept of past & future - which themselves

are mere concepts with no substantives. The conceptual or imaginary

'time' appears to be real while the 'present' which is an imaginary line

is true existence where the truth, 'I' exists. Hence in deep sleep when

the mind is folded along with all its imaginations - the concept of time

also gets dissolved.

 

The time definition with respect to spatial coordinates is only

operational definition for convenience and interdependency is obvious

but still space is more real than time - even in theories of physics.

Unlike space, 'time' is not considered as real variable. They can only

define time on relative basis - and goes with an imaginary symbol

(square root of i).

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasanji,

>Time is our creation. We measure time based on the

>changes we see around us. Without change there

>cannot be time.

 

I think this is the correct answer from the Advaitic perspective.

According to Advaita, as I understand it, time is another mayic

illusion of the mind, superposed like the snake on the rope of

consciousness.

 

Yet, when I forget about Advaita and simply try to do the 'thought

experiment' of imagining the absence of all sense stimuli, so that

only the consciousness of 'I am' remains, it still seems to me that

this 'I am' dwells in time. Even with no changes occurring in the

realm of perception, since the senses have been stripped away, it

seems to me that there is still the feeling of duration, or the

duration of my existence.

 

But perhaps there is still a subtle change, the thought 'I am. I am.

I am.', repeated over an over again. Perhaps this internal thought

is the change you are referring to, so that time does arise upon the

'contamination' of pure awareness with some kind of thought.

 

Still, I would bet that time is the most elemental superposition on

consciousness, which seems to be confirmed by Vedic myths giving a

primordial status to Kala, the Goddess of time.

 

I see many other messages I have not read yet. My apologies if I

fail to address your good points in this one.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> In deep sleep there is no time nor space, we are there in our

> true nature Anandamaya (mAndukya shruti - mantra -5) which is

> beyond space & time (dEsha & kAla) (reference shankara bhAshya

> on this mantra). The congnisance of the waking hours & its

> continuity can only happen to jIva who *thinks* he has awaken

> to the waking world from deep sleep (vaiSvAnara, the experiencer

> of the gross - reference mAndukya shruti 3) . But in

> sushupti avastha, prAjnA who is in the state of one mass of

> consciousness (prajnAna ghana) does not experience neither time

> nor space.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

 

In deep sleep there is neither Bhaskarji nor Chittaranjanji, but on

that account you're not pointing out to me that Chittaranjan is now

not writing this mail. Since we are now discussing in the waking

state, the reference is the waking state.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rakeshji,

 

I am trying to limit my messages to no more than one a day, but at

the same time we want to encourage members who have remained silent,

such as you until this day!

>Space seems to be more real to me as the lack of matter

>is visible, though time seems to be more defined by the

>sequence of events that make rational sense, more by the

>development of empirical logic

 

It is interesting that you used a reason similar to mine to derive an

opposite conclusion! The point in my first message was that I can

imagine all visible space to disappear, but I cannot imagine time to

disappear. Strip away all my senses, and time remains. Therefore

time seems to have priority. Space seems less real to me precisely

because I can imagine an existence without it, and this seems

contrary to what you are saying.

 

A more subtle question is whether time remains when even my internal

thoughts are stripped away, even one so basic as 'I am'. That was

the point I made in my last message. Actually, in a way this is

similar to what you are saying, namely, that time seems to arise upon

the activity of thought...

 

It is good to remember that in Advaita even the 'I-thought' is not

the true Self. Any thought is contaminated by some degree of

objectivity, which contradicts the nondual subjectivity of the Self.

So we might ask, 'Is time contaminated with any degree of

objectivity?'

 

By the way, don't be too harsh on organized religions, as you implied

in one of your comments. Indeed, a lot of harm is done in the name

of religion, but what kind of savages might we be without it? Still,

let us maintain the venerable old Vedic tradition of free inquiry

into the ultimate nature of Truth. Let us resist all attempts at

dogmatism. Even the Vedas would love us to question them.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Kathirasanji,

>

> >Time is our creation. We measure time based on the

> >changes we see around us. Without change there

> >cannot be time.

>

> I think this is the correct answer from the Advaitic perspective.

> According to Advaita, as I understand it, time is another mayic

> illusion of the mind, superposed like the snake on the rope of

> consciousness.

>

> Yet, when I forget about Advaita and simply try to do the 'thought

> experiment' of imagining the absence of all sense stimuli, so that

> only the consciousness of 'I am' remains, it still seems to me that

> this 'I am' dwells in time. Even with no changes occurring in the

> realm of perception, since the senses have been stripped away, it

> seems to me that there is still the feeling of duration, or the

> duration of my existence.

>

> But perhaps there is still a subtle change, the thought 'I am. I

am.

> I am.', repeated over an over again. Perhaps this internal thought

> is the change you are referring to, so that time does arise upon

the

> 'contamination' of pure awareness with some kind of thought.

>

> Still, I would bet that time is the most elemental superposition on

> consciousness, which seems to be confirmed by Vedic myths giving a

> primordial status to Kala, the Goddess of time.

>

> I see many other messages I have not read yet. My apologies if I

> fail to address your good points in this one.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

Namaste!

 

I remember reading Swami Chinmayananda's commentary on Atmabodha

where he explains time as the interval between two _experiences_. It

is only when we become conscious of a second experience from one

experience that we notice the passage of time. Thus, only when we

wake up from deep sleep, we say we have slept for so many hours, etc.

If we are always in the experience of the Self, then there is no time

since there is no second experience.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Shri Madathil said (25th May 04, in message # 22968):

 

"... time cannot be without space and space without time, as objects

have no relevance without events and events cannot be without objects.

 

"Modern physics is therefore right in treating both together as

space-time continuum."

 

It strikes me that this applies to the external world, when we are

speaking at the level of 'vaikhari' or 'elaboration'. Then we are

considering a world of elaborated structure, where different points of

space can co-exist at the same moment of time. In this consideration,

all objects and events can be considered as manifesting the pure

geometry of 'akasha', which is the one pervading background of all

space and time.

 

In modern physics, this consideration is approached by Einstein, in

his general theory of relativity. Here, he attempts a complete

'dematerialization' of physics. All seemingly material mechanics are

sought to be described as pure, immaterial geometry. Space and time

are not here a container for material objects and events. Instead, the

space-time continuum is an underlying background that continues

through all its manifestations in observed events -- as seen by all

observers, who travel through the one continuum. All seemingly

material happenings are only differing and changing appearances of the

one, same continuity, pervading through all space and time.

 

In ancient conceptions, this same continuity is described by words

like 'ether' or 'akasha', as for example in the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad 3.8, when Gargi asks:

 

"Consider all that's said to be:

above the heavens, below the earth,

in heaven and earth and in between;

including all there ever was,

is now, and will in future be.

In what is all that woven, warp and woof?"

 

To this question, Yajnyavalkya replies: "All of that is woven, warp

and woof, in 'ether'."

 

This is as far as physics goes, but Gargi isn't satisfied. So she

persists with a further question:

"In what is 'ether' woven, warp and woof?"

 

In reply, Yajnyavalkya tells her that the 'ether' in its turn shows an

ultimate reality which is described as 'akshara' or 'changeless'. And

to identify it specifically, he says at last that it is pure

consciousness, the knowing subject, utterly unmixed with any object

that is perceived or known.

 

"This same changeless principle

is not the seen. It is the see-er.

It is not heard; it is the hearer.

It is not thought; it is the thinker.

It is not known; it is the knower.

 

"Apart from it, there is no see-er.

Apart from it, there is no hearer.

Apart from it, there is no thinker.

Apart from it, there is no knower.

 

"In just this unchanging principle,

the [all-pervading] 'ether'

is woven, warp and woof."

 

However, I would say that this approach through physics is somewhat

indirect. It goes from our partial perceptions of particular objects

to an expanded view of all space and time in the entire world. And

from that universal expansion, called 'brahman', there is eventually

an inward reflection back to the knowing principle of consciousness,

from which each object and the entire world must always be expressed.

 

It's more direct to reflect immediately back from each object into the

mind through which the object has arisen, in the immediate microcosm

of individual experience. When thus reflecting back into the mind, we

are speaking at a level that is called 'madhyama' or 'in between'. For

any object to appear, it must depend upon a mind that mediates between

this object and the consciousness that knows it.

 

Reflecting back into this mediating mind, space is impossible and must

dissolve. For, in the mind, there is only a succession of thoughts

(called 'krama'). At each moment of the mind, a thought occurs,

replacing what has gone before. And in its turn, each present thought

gives way to future thoughts by which it is replaced. No two moments

can exist simultaneously. In any single moment, there's no time to

distinguish between different things or different points of space. No

different things, no different points can ever co-exist in mind.

 

Thus, strictly speaking, space and mind are incompatible. The mind has

only time in it, with only moments in succession. In mind alone, there

is no possibility for space to be made up, from different points that

co-exist. An external body must be added onto mind, for space to

actually occur. The mind of course conceives that there is space in

it, that different things can co-exist in mind. But this conception is

a lie. In truth, the mind has only time in it, with neither space nor

any difference existing ever in the mind.

 

When the lie has been admitted and the truth is realized, then mind

and time are realized as nothing else but consciousness, in which all

time and change are utterly dissolved.

 

In Sanskrit, the word 'pashyanti' or 'seeing' is used to describe a

level of speaking where the lie has been admitted. Then it is

acknowledged that the seeing is one, although a last remaining sense

of difference may still make it appear that changing things are seen.

 

When that last sense of difference is finally dissolved, the word

'para' or 'beyond' is used to describe a changeless ground of speech

where truth is fully realized. Then that which knows and what is known

turn out to be 'advaita' or 'non-dual'.

 

In short, I'd suggest that we can think of a reflection back in,

through four levels of expression:

 

1. Space (or more accurately space-time) -- which is perceived through

an incongruous mixture of outer body and inner mind.

 

2. Time -- which is a succession of moments through which the outer

world of body is conceived by mind, in a mistaken and confused way

that undermines and contradicts itself.

 

3. Causality -- which is the underlying continuity of consciousness

that does not truly change, though seemingly expressed in different

and changing things.

 

4. Truth -- where all space and time and cause are taken in, and

utterly dissolved.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantanji.

 

Also, when we are *fully engrossed with and immersed in* any

experience, time disappears. This is our usual experience. It is so

because in such 'experiences' the 'experiencing' doesn't involve any

division or separation, i.e. experiencer and experienced. We simply

become 'experiencing'. But, alas, when that 'experiencing' gets

over, time returns with a vengeance with the next experience

imposing division and separation! This applies to samAdhi too. In

fact, we are a string of micro-samAdhis - moment to moment

immersions. We only need to realize that the separation we feel is

an error by knowing that the experiencing of separation and division

itself is another immersion. The seeming reality of time then

crumbles revealing our real nature of Oneness with everything

experienced.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

.........>

> I remember reading Swami Chinmayananda's commentary on Atmabodha

> where he explains time as the interval between two _experiences_.

It

> is only when we become conscious of a second experience from one

> experience that we notice the passage of time. Thus, only when we

> wake up from deep sleep, we say we have slept for so many hours,

etc.

> If we are always in the experience of the Self, then there is no

time

> since there is no second experience.

[Guest guest]

praNAm CN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

you said:

 

In deep sleep there is neither Bhaskarji nor Chittaranjanji, but on

that account you're not pointing out to me that Chittaranjan is now

not writing this mail. Since we are now discussing in the waking

state, the reference is the waking state.

 

bhaskar:

 

Yes, in deep sleep there is neither bhaskar nor CN prabhuji nor e-mails &

cyber nets AND that is what our svarUpa without any nAma rUpa or specific

features (atra vEda avEda so says br. shruti while describing deep sleep

state). When you witness these avasthA-s from sAkshi point you realise

that jAgrat, svapna & suShupti are mere superimpositions on YOU. So, from

sAkShi chEtaH view point CN prabhuji writing mail to me, my reading of it

everthing becomes mithyA since this reality of your writing holds water

only in a particular avastha. But shruti tells you are the witness of both

jAgrat & svapna state (svapnAtau jAgaritAntaM chObhaUyEnAnupaSyati!

mahAntaM vibhumAtmAnam matvA dhIrO na SOchati - kAtaka shruti). The

reference what you are holding as a reality in waking state goes in thin

air while dreaming & as a dreamer you will be enjoying different world in

different frame of time & space with same degree of reality. So, both

these states are valid only in its respective avasthA-s & YOU are kEvala

nirguNa & witness consciousness to these three states (sAkshi chEtaH kEvalo

nirguNascha - Sw.Up.). And this is what gaudapAda says in mAndUkya kArika

also, na antaH pragna (inward consciousness), na bahirprajnA (outward

consciousness) in either direction, not a mass of consciousness neither

consciousness nor unconscious & that which negates all contact of states of

consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific features.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

namaste advaitins,

one of our great poets told GOD,

" create me anywhere you want, DIVI VAA BHUVI VAA

NARAGESHU---- [into the devaloka ,or on the earth,

or in the hell ---]---, i do not object, but OH LORD,

just ensure that my mind is always fixed on the

divine experience of your lotus feet.".

once the mind is thus transfixed, what

does it matter where or when one is posited?

with pranams,

a.v.krshnan.

 

 

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote: > Namaste Neelakantanji.

>

> Also, when we are *fully engrossed with and immersed

> in* any

> experience, time disappears. This is our usual

> experience. It is so

> because in such 'experiences' the 'experiencing'

> doesn't involve any

> division or separation, i.e. experiencer and

> experienced. We simply

> become 'experiencing'. But, alas, when that

> 'experiencing' gets

> over, time returns with a vengeance with the next

> experience

> imposing division and separation! This applies to

> samAdhi too. In

> fact, we are a string of micro-samAdhis - moment to

> moment

> immersions. We only need to realize that the

> separation we feel is

> an error by knowing that the experiencing of

> separation and division

> itself is another immersion. The seeming reality of

> time then

> crumbles revealing our real nature of Oneness with

> everything

> experienced.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________

>

> advaitin, "Neelakantan"

> <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

> ........>

> > I remember reading Swami Chinmayananda's

> commentary on Atmabodha

> > where he explains time as the interval between two

> _experiences_.

> It

> > is only when we become conscious of a second

> experience from one

> > experience that we notice the passage of time.

> Thus, only when we

> > wake up from deep sleep, we say we have slept for

> so many hours,

> etc.

> > If we are always in the experience of the Self,

> then there is no

> time

> > since there is no second experience.

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

__________

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

> The reference what you are holding as a reality in waking

> state goes in thin air while dreaming & as a dreamer you

> will be enjoying different world in different frame of

> time & space with same degree of reality.

 

The reference is the waking state because it is the present

unsublated experience. What is experienced is to be accepted as it is

experienced, until it is sublated.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> praNAm CN prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> you said:

>

> In deep sleep there is neither Bhaskarji nor Chittaranjanji, but on

> that account you're not pointing out to me that Chittaranjan is now

> not writing this mail. Since we are now discussing in the waking

> state, the reference is the waking state.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> Yes, in deep sleep there is neither bhaskar nor CN prabhuji

> nor e-mails & cyber nets AND that is what our svarUpa without

> any nAma rUpa or specific

> features (atra vEda avEda so says br. shruti while describing deep

sleep

> state). When you witness these avasthA-s from sAkshi point you

realise

> that jAgrat, svapna & suShupti are mere superimpositions on YOU.

So, from

> sAkShi chEtaH view point CN prabhuji writing mail to me, my reading

of it

> everthing becomes mithyA since this reality of your writing holds

water

> only in a particular avastha. But shruti tells you are the witness

of both

> jAgrat & svapna state (svapnAtau jAgaritAntaM chObhaUyEnAnupaSyati!

> mahAntaM vibhumAtmAnam matvA dhIrO na SOchati - kAtaka shruti). The

> reference what you are holding as a reality in waking state goes in

thin

> air while dreaming & as a dreamer you will be enjoying different

world in

> different frame of time & space with same degree of reality. So,

both

> these states are valid only in its respective avasthA-s & YOU are

kEvala

> nirguNa & witness consciousness to these three states (sAkshi

chEtaH kEvalo

> nirguNascha - Sw.Up.). And this is what gaudapAda says in mAndUkya

kArika

> also, na antaH pragna (inward consciousness), na bahirprajnA

(outward

> consciousness) in either direction, not a mass of consciousness

neither

> consciousness nor unconscious & that which negates all contact of

states of

> consciousness and declares that Atman is free from all specific

features.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji.

 

Thank you for your profound and wonderful post # 22982. I would

request you to kindly clarify my doubts/questions expressed within

brackets in relevant sections of your post quoted below (without

brackets):

___

 

However, I would say that this approach through physics is somewhat

indirect.

 

[Yes. It indeed is indirect. But, yet, isn't it just the relevant

way to answer the specific question Benji asked?]

 

 

It goes from our partial perceptions of particular objects

to an expanded view of all space and time in the entire world. And

from that universal expansion, called 'brahman', there is eventually

an inward reflection back to the knowing principle of consciousness,

from which each object and the entire world must always be expressed.

 

[That universal expansion cannot be Brahman as it is only the

appreciation of a fact. The principle that knows this fact as a fact

is Brahman which I cannot know of in the usual manner of knowing

because it is me and I can't be an object of my knowing.]

 

 

 

It's more direct to reflect immediately back from each object into the

mind through which the object has arisen, in the immediate microcosm

of individual experience. When thus reflecting back into the mind, we

are speaking at a level that is called 'madhyama' or 'in between'. For

any object to appear, it must depend upon a mind that mediates between

this object and the consciousness that knows it.

 

[Mind being a stream of thoughts and all thoughts being objects, I am

a little puzzled why you bring in mind here as a mediate. Or are you

talking only about external objects?]

 

 

 

Reflecting back into this mediating mind, space is impossible and must

dissolve. For, in the mind, there is only a succession of thoughts

(called 'krama').

 

[Rather, isn't mind just a succession of thoughts? Why the

expression `in the mind' which, I am afraid, misleads?]

 

 

At each moment of the mind, a thought occurs,

replacing what has gone before. And in its turn, each present thought

gives way to future thoughts by which it is replaced. No two moments

can exist simultaneously. In any single moment, there's no time to

distinguish between different things or different points of space. No

different things, no different points can ever co-exist in mind.

 

[This is just similar to the external world where events stand for

thoughts. Isn't the separation between two thoughts suggestive of

mental space and time? For example: I am thinking of my brother and

sister. Are they not separated by mental space in my visualization?

If events demand space and time, then thoughts also do. I mean

mental space and time. Am I right?]

 

 

 

Thus, strictly speaking, space and mind are incompatible. The mind has

only time in it, with only moments in succession. In mind alone, there

is no possibility for space to be made up, from different points that

co-exist. An external body must be added onto mind, for space to

actually occur. The mind of course conceives that there is space in

it, that different things can co-exist in mind. But this conception is

a lie. In truth, the mind has only time in it, with neither space nor

any difference existing ever in the mind.

 

[Why do you call it a lie. It looks as perfect as the external

world. I am afraid mind here has been conceived as a unique entity.

Isn't it just a succession of thoughts like the external world is a

succession of events? From the point of view of the knowing

principle, is a watertight demarcation between mind and external

world demanded at all? Isn't this compartmentalization detrimental

to the direct route suggested?]

 

 

 

When the lie has been admitted and the truth is realized, then mind

and time are realized as nothing else but consciousness, in which all

time and change are utterly dissolved.

 

[The lie or rather the error is the experiencing of space-time

continuum both internally and externally. I would therefore prefer to

say that what are known as mind and external world are realized as

nothing but consciousness in which space-time continuum,

unfortunately categorized as external and internal, is utterly

dissolved. Will you agree, Sir?]

 

 

 

In Sanskrit, the word 'pashyanti' or 'seeing' is used to describe a

level of speaking where the lie has been admitted. Then it is

acknowledged that the seeing is one, although a last remaining sense

of difference may still make it appear that changing things are seen.

 

[ I am fully with you here.]

 

 

 

When that last sense of difference is finally dissolved, the word

'para' or 'beyond' is used to describe a changeless ground of speech

where truth is fully realized. Then that which knows and what is known

turn out to be 'advaita' or 'non-dual'.

 

[Quite rightly stated.]

 

 

 

In short, I'd suggest that we can think of a reflection back in,

through four levels of expression:

 

1. Space (or more accurately space-time) -- which is perceived through

an incongruous mixture of outer body and inner mind.

 

[i would add the words "either singly and/or together as existing

both inside and outside" at the end of your definition, if you meant

by `outer body' the sense organs which cannot perceive anything

without the so called mind being behind them. The mixture is indeed

incongruous.]

 

 

2. Time -- which is a succession of moments through which the outer

world of body is conceived by mind, in a mistaken and confused way

that undermines and contradicts itself.

 

[When space is understood in reflecton # 1 as space-time, why do we

have to single out time here? Aren't they to be done away with

together?]

 

 

3. Causality -- which is the underlying continuity of consciousness

that does not truly change, though seemingly expressed in different

and changing things.

 

[i am with you.]

 

 

4. Truth -- where all space and time and cause are taken in, and

utterly dissolved.

 

[i am with you. However, a doubt lingers. Why even differentiate

between causality and truth? Can you kindly elaborate on the

subtlety of your expression?]

 

 

[My attempt is to put together all that are objectified (mind and

external world) in one compact category against the knowing principle

(me) that I cannot know of. The former demands space-time continuum

for their apparent existence. Realization then consists in

reflecting back and understanding that the `objectifieds', including

space-time continuum, are because the knowing principle is or I AM

(not the other way around) or, in other words, the `objectifieds'

are just the knowing principle misunderstood through error (`seeing

is one', as you beautifully expressed). As space-time continuum

sustains the objectifieds, it is the essential ingredient of the

error. Isn't this a more easier route than the direct detailed by

you?]

 

Thanks and praNAms.

 

Madathil Nair