Time

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote:

>

> On May 30, 2008, at 5:54 AM, Stefan wrote:

>

> Whenever I have looked at " time " closely, in an effort to " catch " the

> perception of time " itself " , in an effort to identify " time " itself or

> one of its aspects as anything apart from a mere term, the following

> has happened: the putative sensing of time faded away until it

> completely disappeared. It seems I am not able to directly perceive

> time itself.

>

> P: Well, this is one of those philosophical problems

> created when we think abstract words represent things

> that exist by themselves. It would be like trying to see

> vision itself apart from being conscious of what you see,

> or seeing movement when nothing moves. Time is just

> a word for the speed at what change is perceived. So

> there is no one Time, but time is relative to each observer.

>

> There are subatomic particles which last only a few atto-

> seconds ( a billionth of a billionth of a second) such rate

> of change is too fast even for light. Light can only travel

> the length of 3 hydrogen atoms in such time.

>

> At my snail human pace, I went for a walk today. With each

> step my view changed. A new tree, a new flower, a car going

> by, and gone in a flash. Only preserved in memory a few seconds.

> Now, I can't remember all those flowers, all those cars. They

> are gone. We only remember what we must, most of the time:

> Our name, our home, how to get back. When that is gone,

> all sense of direction and time is gone. We are a summation

> in memory of events which flash by.

>

>

>

> http://cerosoul.wordpress.com

>

> enlightenedfiction

>

> Pete

>

 

 

Time is only *relative* to the *altered* state we are in. My life is

disappearing even as I write these words.

 

When I step into the *realm* of the elderly... Time is so slow, it

seems that that's all the elderly have...

 

Ain't that a kick?

 

~Anna