Modeling Time (MTS-4)

November 1, 2005

On 10/31/05 Ben writes “Suppose one imagines consciousness of an utterly

black space, with no thoughts except the sequences

of thoughts: "This is a moment. This is the next

moment." And so on. Then there would be the

perception of time, and thus time, since as we have

said, the perception of time and the reality of time

are not distinct. I doubt you would have any

objection to this clarification, as you include thoughts

(and indeed any BMI) under the notion of 'state'. One might then try to get coy

and suppose a consciousness

even devoid of the thought of successive moments.

Would there not still be an 'implicit time', *as if* the

thoughts marking the successive moments had been

present?”

Ben has raised some corollary questions and provided, I think, the correct

answers too. That time is not independent of Consciousness will be no doubt

acceptable to Advaitins. We are scheduled to discuss the precise nature of

“experience of time” in a future posting when these questions will be revisited,

but what is said above rings true to me.

Hari Om!

- Raju Chidambaram.

November 1, 2005

Namaste Shri Chidambaram-Ji Shri and Ben-Ji

Regarding:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That time is not independent of Consciousness will be no doubt

acceptable to Advaitins.

And

I doubt you would have any

objection to this clarification, as you include thoughts

(and indeed any BMI) under the notion of 'state'.

And

Would there not still be an 'implicit time', *as if* the

thoughts marking the successive moments had been

present?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please note that similar conclusions were derived by me in my two

posts:

advaitin/message/28331

advaitin/message/28343

I provide the following speculations which seem to match with what

you say

1) Time is a mental abstraction and there are two concepts of

time "Local" time and "Cosmic Time"

this resonates with "implicit" time mentioned by you. I call

it "local" time. Thus "local" or implicit time can be different (like

in meditation "local" time stands still) from Cosmic time (cosmic

time marches on irrespective of local time).

2) Concept of Cosmic and Local time is to be thought of as being part

of Lower and Higher natures of the Lord as per BG 7.4 and 7.5. Thus

time is a object of knowledge, a "Field" as per 7.4 definition. This

matches with your "state" as you put BMI and time together and call

it "state". The "state" seems to be equivalent to "field" of BG 7.4.

Now as per Sankhya there is a "wireless" connection between the

Higher and the Lower nature. The Higher nature which is pure

consciousness energizes the Lower Nature like a magnet does to iron

filings. Maybe the ego is the "force-field" like the magnetic field

of the magnet. Anyway when the electro magnet called consciousness is

turned off, there is no energy to feed the mind/body and then all

mental concepts like time/space disappear.

These speculations are only mind games . As per Bhagven Raman all

speculations are to be given up. Who am "I" should be the question.

In this case who thinks of time and space. My mind when energized by

the ego. How do I stop the thoughts of Time and Space. By turning off

the force field of the ego. What will happen then.The Higher nature

with all its energy will remain in its own house and the lower nature

will self destruct since there is no energy feeding it.

Warm regards

Hersh

November 2, 2005

Hi Hersh,

Thanks for your comments.

I would say that each jeeva has his own 'local time',

as he watches his illusory 'movie' unfold. (Purists

will object to 'he' and 'his', but there must be some

kind of phenomenal distinction between the

different jeevas and their private movies.)

Cosmic time would be for Brahman, but Brahman

has no sense of time. From the perspective of

Brahman – if one can even ascribe a 'perspective'

to Brahman – it would seem that all of 'time' and

'creation' is present in one eternal 'now'.

At least that is what 'logic' would suggest. To me

at any rate. But as you say, it is all speculation

and mind games.

Sorry, for all these quotes, but I find it irresistible

when discussing such matters.

Benjamin

November 2, 2005

Hari OM!

Dear Raju,

Nice posting, really enjoying and learning, I have one question, If the

perception and also the reality of the time are one and the same, Actually

this time concept is only on the mental level,(BMI level) even in space is

there any time concept, related to the Earth there is of course time, but in

space what is the real time??? What is the time and distance concept if

there is no mind??? and If there is no thoughts, time itself is measured in

"Second" so what is the first??? Is there really a time in Consciousness?

Like Mind is IN the consicousness The TIME also is IN the mind, is it not

true? Please clarify if I am wrong.

With Love & OM

Krishna Prasad

On 11/1/05, aiyers <aiyers wrote:

>

> On 10/31/05 Ben writes "Suppose one imagines consciousness of an utterly

> black space, with no thoughts except the sequences

> of thoughts: "This is a moment. This is the next

> moment." And so on. Then there would be the

> perception of time, and thus time, since as we have

> said, the perception of time and the reality of time

> are not distinct. I doubt you would have any

> objection to this clarification, as you include thoughts

> (and indeed any BMI) under the notion of 'state'. One might then try to

> get coy and suppose a consciousness

> even devoid of the thought of successive moments.

> Would there not still be an 'implicit time', *as if* the

> thoughts marking the successive moments had been

> present?"

>

> Ben has raised some corollary questions and provided, I think, the correct

> answers too. That time is not independent of Consciousness will be no doubt

> acceptable to Advaitins. We are scheduled to discuss the precise nature of

> "experience of time" in a future posting when these questions will be

> revisited, but what is said above rings true to me.

>

> Hari Om!

>

> - Raju Chidambaram.

>

> 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

>

November 2, 2005

advaitin, "Benjamin Orion" <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Hi Hersh,

>

> Thanks for your comments.

>

> >

> Cosmic time would be for Brahman, but Brahman

> has no sense of time. From the perspective of

> Brahman – if one can even ascribe a 'perspective'

> to Brahman – it would seem that all of 'time' and

> 'creation' is present in one eternal 'now'.

>

Namaste, Ben -ji

A simple correction to the above. "Cosmic time would be for BrahmA

the Creator, but Brahman has no sense of time".

Thanks. I am enjoying the discussion on Time in MTS; but I am not

contributing to it, for the obvious reason: Ignorance.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

November 2, 2005

>

> A simple correction to the above. "Cosmic time would be for BrahmA

> the Creator, but Brahman has no sense of time".

>

Thank you profvk-Ji for the correction. Ben in my posts, I did say

cosmic time is a "Field" of Ishvara (not Brahman) who is the "base"

class, of which we (jivas) are instances.

Warm Regards

Hersh

November 2, 2005

Hershji wrote "....Thus "local" or implicit time can be different (like

in meditation "local" time stands still) from Cosmic time (cosmic

time marches on irrespective of local time)....

Also "..These speculations are only mind games . As per Bhagven Raman all

speculations are to be given up... "

Thank you, Hershji for your comments. I am happy to note the parallels between

the time concepts you favor and those I have used. I also agree that all

speculations such as those in my paper and generally in Advaitic discussions,

while entertaining and sometimes even potentially illuminating, will not

directly help our salvation.

Spiritual progress demands adherence to the spiritual sadhanas we have been

taught in Gita and Upanishads and by all the acharyas. There is simply no way

around it.

Hari Om!

- Raju Chidambaram

November 2, 2005

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

> Namaste, Ben -ji

>

> A simple correction to the above. "Cosmic time would be for

BrahmA

> the Creator, but Brahman has no sense of time".

>

> Thanks. I am enjoying the discussion on Time in MTS; but I am not

> contributing to it, for the obvious reason: Ignorance.

Pranams Prof.V.K.-ji,

Now you are being modest! In one of the posts you had

mentioned a telling metaphor - "instead of dissolving the snake-like

superimposition on the rope, we like to debate whether the snake is

a cobra or a python"!!

Gaudapada Mandukya Karika and Shankara Bhashya on it,

esp. II:19-30, is an excellent reminder of this metaphor.

Regards,

Sunder

Ref.

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/mandukyakarika.htm

II-19. (The Self) is imagined as infinite objects like prana etc.

This is the Maya of the luminous One by which It itself is deluded,

(as it where).

(List of Various Views of Nature of Reality)

II-20. The knowers of Prana hold Prana (to be the cause of the

world), which the knowers of the elements regard the elements (to be

the cause). Qualities (are the cause), say the knowers of quality,

whereas the knowers of category consider categories (to be so).

II-21. The knowers of the quarters (such as Visva) hold the

quarters (to be the cause), while the knowers of sensory objects

regard sensory objects (to be the cause). the worlds (are real), say

the knowers of the worlds, and the knowers of the gods consider the

gods (to be so).

II-22. Those well-versed in the Vedic lore hold the Vedas (to be

real), while the sacrificers it to the sacrifices. Those

who know the enjoyer hold the enjoyer (to be real), whereas those

familiar with the enjoyable things think of them (to be real).

II-23. Subtlety (is real), say those who know the subtlety, while

those familiar with the gross regard it to be so. (Reality is)

possessed of a form, say the worshippers of God with form, while the

worshippers of the formless (hold the reality) to be formless.

II-24. The astrologers hold time (to be real), while the knowers

of directions consider directions (to be so). Those stiff in debate

affirm that disputations (lead to the reality), whereas those who

aspire after the worlds consider them (to be real).

II-25. The knowers of the mind hold it (to be the Self), while

the knowers of the intellect regard it (to be so). The knowers of

the heart ascribe (reality to it), whereas it is attributed to

virtue and vice by those who know them.

II-26. Some say that twenty-five categories (constitute the

reality), whereas others speak of twenty-six. Again, some say that

thirty-one categories (constitute it), yet some others hold that

they are infinite.

II-27. Those who know the people (and their pleasures) find

reality in pleasures. Those who are familiar with the stages of life

regard them (as real). The grammarians (ascribe reality) to the

words in the masculine, feminine and neuter genders, whereas others

(know reality) to be the higher and lower (brahman).

II-28. Those who know all about creation (say that reality

consists in) creation. (Reality lies) in dissolution, say those who

know it, while those who know about subsistence (hold it to be the

reality). All these ideas are always imagined on the Self.

II-29. He to whom (a teacher) might show an object sees that

alone (as the reality). That object, too, becoming one with him,

protects him. That state of being engrossed culminates in his self-

identity with the object shown.

II-30. By these things that are non-separate (from the Self),

this Self is manifested as though separate. He who knows this truly

comprehends (the meaning of the Vedas) without entertaining any

doubt.

November 2, 2005