Guest guest Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > rote:> > > 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? Many would say yes, but I agree with you > > that actually the answer is no, since I cannot distinguish > > the unfolding of time from the awareness of that > > unfolding, and hence the thought of it. > > > To me this looks like pure esse-percepi, and it seems to generate a > few conundrums. > > > Conundrum 1: > > If there is no time when consciousness is devoid of the thought of > successive moments, then there is no time in deep sleep. If there is > no time in deep sleep, then the time before one fell into deep sleep > is juxtaposed with the time that one emerged out of deep sleep. If Namaste C, It seems to me a little like the chicken and the egg argument about what came first. What if there is no chicken and no egg, then what? What if it never happened at all, no deep sleep or no day to day consciousness? I feel that Ajatavada is the truth. Deep sleep is not totally devoid of illusion for itself it is a continous thought of ignorance, it is a veil in itself. Therefore part of the illusion. If one wakes to the world having moved on whilst one is in deep sleep it doesn't prove the world to be real or give it any greater validity. It just proves that time doesn't exist and that deep sleep and day to day awakeness are just different dimensions of the same illusion. One had to get to the Turiya or Sahaja State of Nirvikalpa Samadhi to be above the illusion. Otherwise we are talking about whether it is a snake or a rope, when neither happened in the first place....ONS...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2005 Report Share Posted November 3, 2005 advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery> wrote: > > <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > rote:> > > > 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? Many would say yes, but I agree with you > > > that actually the answer is no, since I cannot distinguish > > > the unfolding of time from the awareness of that > > > unfolding, and hence the thought of it. > > > > > > To me this looks like pure esse-percepi, and it seems to generate > a > > few conundrums. > > > > > > Conundrum 1: > > > > If there is no time when consciousness is devoid of the thought of > > successive moments, then there is no time in deep sleep. If there > is > > no time in deep sleep, then the time before one fell into deep > sleep > > is juxtaposed with the time that one emerged out of deep sleep. If > > Namaste C, > > It seems to me a little like the chicken and the egg argument about > what came first. What if there is no chicken and no egg, then what? > What if it never happened at all, no deep sleep or no day to day > consciousness? > > I feel that Ajatavada is the truth. > > Deep sleep is not totally devoid of illusion for itself it is a > continous thought of ignorance, it is a veil in itself. Therefore > part of the illusion. > > If one wakes to the world having moved on whilst one is in deep > sleep it doesn't prove the world to be real or give it any greater > validity. It just proves that time doesn't exist and that deep sleep > and day to day awakeness are just different dimensions of the same > illusion. > > One had to get to the Turiya or Sahaja State of Nirvikalpa Samadhi > to be above the illusion. Otherwise we are talking about whether it > is a snake or a rope, when neither happened in the first > place....ONS...Tony. > In advaitin , " hersh_b " <hershbhasin@g...> wrote: > > Namaste All > > One had to get to the Turiya or Sahaja State of Nirvikalpa Samadhi > > to be above the illusion. > > Who feels/ is aware of Time... " I " > What is " I " > The First mental concept of the mind ... " I am " . > So ego is the (first mental concept of the) mind > Now ego has to be discarded to go beyond time. Namaste H, Yes time is an illusion even scientifically, it can be bent and turned back on itself in space, black holes etc. It is relative. The first concept of the Jiva is the Ego or small I, although even in illusion there is a universal 'I'. However in illusion, which includes the ignorance of deep sleep time is relative and changeable, depending on the level of illusion. So although there may be time in the material world there is none in the subtle. When Krishna says he is time, He is talking as a JivanMukta or the Saguna Brahman. For without the illusory projection of Saguna there is no time. It all disappears on dropping the body of a Mukta anyway, so it never happened in the first place..............ONS..Tony. 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.