What if THIS is all there is?

"Time itself does not move - but things move within time. The word "Now" is just a short-hand for the current configuration of the universe. It isn't ever configured other than how it is right now. So it isn't accurate to say there is no time - just that there is no time *other than the time it is right now*."


t seems you're changing the definition of time to accommodate both relative and absolute aspects of it. I assert that's not necessary. I'm sorry but will continue to insist that relative and absolute exist as one thing, together, both at the same time, both true.

To each his own! So long as one's practice isn't affected.

Could I pose your question to me, back to you, though? I'm not sure I understand your entire take on it. If there is timelessness, why aren't we just frozen in a never changing matrix of... whatever? How do things change?

Sure,

This is something that I've expressed on these boards as well as on some others more than a few times. I've already said it twice on this thread: if you look at just one aspect of existence, let's say the day to day relative aspect, then it appears as if everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self. But yet through dedicated practice we can access another aspect of experience, where everything appears very satisfactory (actually perfect), permanent and timeless, and where everything is clearly intimate and very much related and part of but one "thing."

At first those two views seem contradictory. Some folks will say the relative experience is the truth. Others, often those who have just encountered it, will say the absolute experience is the "real" truth. Well, no, neither alone is true. What we have is the weird, ineffable and mysterious distinction of living in both. They are in fact but one thing. Two sides of the same existential coin, so to speak. Both are, simultaneously.

Thusly, there is no contradiction. How we see is related directly to what we see. Choose the relative view and that's what you get. Choose the absolute view and that's what you get. As I see it this is one of the key meanings of the term "non-dual."

I'm not going to ask if this makes sense because it either will or it won't, depending.

I understand that part of the argument. But I'm asking specifically about this timeless aspect: How does anything change, in that timelessness?

Or are you saying: nothing changes in the timelessness; things change in the time-ful; these are each two sides of the coin?

cmarti: "...and where everything is clearly intimate and very much related and part of but one "thing.""

Can you describe that one "thing" more?

Timelessness refers to the notion that this one "thing" (which you can call the universe, or maybe even Mind) has no beginning and no end. It always is, has been, will be.

cmarti: Timelessness refers to the notion that this one "thing" (which you can call the universe [...] ) has no beginning and no end. It always is, has been, will be.

Ah, so, eternal?

cmarti: "[which you can call the universe], or maybe even Mind"

Do you distinguish between that one thing and your mind?

"Do you distinguish ...."

Nope.

Two follow-ups...

1) Does this one "thing" exist separately from anything it contains? (Is there a one thing/is the one thing separate from the objects within it, the liquids, solids, gases, atoms, space, stars, planets, form/formlessness, volition, perception, vedana, consciousness?)

2) You say you don't distinguish between the one thing and your mind.
a) Before your body was born, was the one thing there? After your body dies, will the one thing be there?
b) Before your body was born, was your mind there? After your body dies, will your mind be there?
c) Was the one thing your mind before your body was born? Will the one thing be your mind after your body dies?

Nothing is separate. Any separation is a duality which, as an aside, answers all of your questions

It is fun to think about this stuff. Trying to answer my own questions caused lots of 'confusion' - which was great to meditate on. Almost like a koan.

1) Correct me if I drew the wrong conclusion, then, but you are then saying that your mind existed before your physical body was born, and it will exist after your physical body dies?

2) If the universe is not separate from your mind, could you go into why things seem to happen when you are asleep?

What is "mind"?

Apply causality/emptiness to that?

Beoman -- your questions all appear to come from the "I/me/mine" perspective. Can you answer StainGH's question?

Cmarti - that's a good point. I made the error of using your word without defining it, first. So, me kind of posing questions to myself instead of you =P.

Since you brought up the word Mind, and I was asking about your take on things, could you define what you mean by Mind? I will adapt to suit the definition.

Beoman, I get the feeling that no matter what I say you will keep crafting it into another question about the same thing. Why don't you first answer the question that was asked of you by StainGH' and let's see where that goes.What's YOUR take on Mind?

It is all causal, interdependent.

My current understanding of "emptiness" is that something which is empty has no independent existence. And since everything is empty, that means that no thing exists independently. Then how, exactly, does anything exist? Interdependently.

Timelessness can mean that in an interdependent universe, any labeling of time is artificial/arbitrary. No thing can ever have a start or an end, how could it; There is no such thing as a "thing". There is only the constantly fluxing, mutating, changing universe.

What we label a "thing" is only an arbitrarily sectioned-off "part" of this constantly changing universe. We artificially freeze a collection of changing phenomena and reference that set of arbitrarily frozen phenomena with a label. What I call 'Stian', for example, is a certain set of states of phenomena that has been arbitrarily chosen, frozen and labeled. The phenomena that are frozen might not even be frozen at the same point in time. I might say that a memory of an event that happened 2 years ago is part of 'Stian', while at the same time I might say that a current physical attribute of this body is part of 'Stian'. That physical attribute and that memory can never actually be separated off as independent phenomena of the universe, because they are part of the stream/constant flux of existence and can not exist independent, outside of the interdependent universe. And they also never stay the same as when they where frozen and labeled.

"Mind" is but a label for a set of phenomena arbitrarily frozen/sectioned-off from the constantly fluxing universe. But even saying "a set of phenomena" is wrong, because it implies that this set of phenomena can "stand on it's own legs", as if "they" were independent. But they are not.

/rambling off

cmarti: "Beoman, I get the feeling that no matter what I say you will keep crafting it into another question about the same thing. Why don't you first answer the question that was asked of you by StainGH' and let's see where that goes.What's YOUR take on Mind?"

Probably. Though my intent isn't to be confrontational, but explore this topic fully, such that, whenever cognitive dissonance arises (brain feeling 'stuck'), I ask something else. Initially I started off by stating my views and how they differed from what I thought yours were. Now I think it is more productive to ask you about your views. And I suppose, productive for you to ask me about mine, so here goes (answers to my own questions):

The universe actually exists. If I die, things will happen much the same (especially in far-away places), except there won't be this consciousness observing it.. much like how things happen when I am asleep. Gone for good into an abyss that won't even be recognized.. the universe itself wasn't born, and won't die, but I will.

When alive, though, there is the mind. The mind perceives things. The only way it knows something is by being conscious of it. So there is no knowledge of an object without consciousness of that object.. no knowledge of being alive without consciousness of mind-objects. So you could say, when holding up a coke can: "This is all mind." Though the mind depends on physicality first of all (physicality of the brain, and of the senses), so it seems the physical is primary (which is why when I die, there will be no mind).

I wouldn't say the universe _is_ mind, though... I would say, for a given body, the universe is the mind (through the physicality) - the only way to know something is to perceive it - but the physical material of the universe is there, the same, regardless of whether there is a mind to perceive it. And it seems the direct physical universe is ultimately unknowable, as one needs to experience it via some kind of sensory input.

For a particular mind, whatever it can experience is all it can experience... so for a mind, the universe _is_ what the mind is experiencing. It can think about whether trees make noises when they fall, but for that mind, it doesn't even know, for sure, a tree is there unless it is seeing it. Everything else is totally inaccessible, imaginary.

So then it gets weird. Are there multiple universes (minds) walking around, interacting? Yet all part of the same universe somehow? Yet each particular mind/universe is born and dies (along with the body), and for each particular mind/universe, there is nothing (no other parts of the universe) except for it... the rest is all concept.

Any thoughts on that?

Will the awareness that is aware of cmarti right now be there when cmarti dies?

bemoan said: "If I die, things will happen much the same (especially in far-away places), except there won't be this consciousness observing it.. much like how things happen when I am asleep. Gone for good into an abyss that won't even be recognized.. the universe itself wasn't born, and won't die, but I will."

Hmmm...

It seems you are identifying with your body/mind. And when your body/mind dies, you will disappear.

But there is no 'you'.

Read the quoted text. Do you see how there is an assumption of 'you'?

Is it true that any such assumption necessitates independence?

In other words, does a belief in/assumption of 'you' necessitate that that 'you' is independent and outside of the interdependent universe, even if ever so subtly?

If yes, then you have your answer.
If no, then how come?

By "I" , I didn't mean the 'self', but the whole body + mind + consciousness etc., the 5 skandhas. When the body dies, all the skhandas will cease, including awareness/consciousness. No consciousness being conscious of being consciousness. This will disappear upon the death of the body.

Either way you read my text, "I" being 'self' or "I" being the aggregates with no clinging, the "I" is clearly not independent, as it depends upon the body functioning properly.

I'm not sure I follow what you were trying to say?

We arbitrarily section-off and freeze at arbitrary times "certain" phenomena (scare quotes because "they" cannot be said to be existing independently and so have no boundaries as to make them any other than the rest of the universe) to form a collection of phenomena that we might label "mind".

Are you asking what cmarti think those certain phenomena are? E.g.: the process of attention, the process of memory recall, the process of sensory awareness, the process of emotional sympathizing, etc.

Or are you asking about the illusory division between mind and Mind? Small mind being the individual persons self-consciousness, limited in time and space, and big Mind being whatever (metaphysical?) Awareness that might pervade the universe.

I understood your posts an expression of wanting to explore the division between mind and Mind, and maybe now that that has been pointed out my posts might make more sense?

Ah, think I get it now. Yes, I am asking about this illusory divide between mind + Mind. And especially, about this Awareness that might pervade the universe. Do you or cmarti take there to be an Awareness that pervades the universe? Do you take yourselves to be that Awareness, or the awareness of your body to be that Awareness? So, was there the awareness your mind + body experiences (or is) before the body was born, and will there be after the body dies?

Or going from your earlier post, Stian: ""Mind" is but a label for a set of phenomena arbitrarily frozen/sectioned-off from the constantly fluxing universe." So, is there a distinction between what-you-are, and the constantly fluxing universe? If no, then were you (however you understand that word) there before the body was, and will you be there after the body dies?

How do we define 'consciousness' here? The good ol' way? I.e. the sum of all our senses coming in contact with their corresponding sense object. "Present moment sensuous awareness" + thoughts?

How do we define 'awareness'? Does awareness need objects? As per the definition above, consciousness needs objects.

If awareness does not need objects, will there be awareness after death? Will there be consciousness after death?

Is it even sensible to distinguish between consciousness and awareness?

Allright, I guess we can disregard my last post, since we arrived at a more defined question (which is what I intended with my last post was).

Yes, yes, I understand what you're asking.

I don't have much of experience with what you are asking. Some points to consider:

I do not recognize any awareness that was present before I was born. I hear it repeated over and over again, but I can't see it.

I believe that there is no actual metaphysical dimension in this world. So there is absolutely no Awareness that pervades. But, there might be relatively so.

My opinion is that whatever we experience is utterly confined to our skulls. Yes, there is external contact with the "outer" world, but anything that is ever "made sense" of is done so inside the human skull.

I have just recently discovered the Witness, I think. Although this feels like it is a metaphysical presence of I AM, there is no doubt in me that it is simply my brain looking at another part of the brain.

Not to say that because of our condiment to our skulls, we can not go through the spiritual development or have instant realizations like so many people here talk about. Of course we can. And it all happens within the confinement of our skulls, no matter what our experience/imagination would tell us.

Let's use consciousness to mean contact. Consciousness does need objects.

I think awareness is the same. There can be awareness of awareness, but that it still an object. Awareness needs objects.

No awareness after death, IMO. What about you?

To everyone:

This discussion is lots of fun to read. Thanks for keeping it going.

To beoman:

One thing I notice in your posts, both in your stated opinions and your questions to others, is a preference for a linear, unidirectional concept of time. Questions like, 'Did you mind exist before you were born? Will it exist after you die?' assume a linear view of history, and unidirectional cause and effect. I'm not saying this is wrong, because on many levels it is an assumption that is quite easy to come to as adults with well-developed cognitive faculties pertaining to formal reasoning. I think it is this very assumption that gets in the way of seeing how a perspective of timelessness could be conceptually equated to a fixed or frozen state.

But this nondual timelessness is not something to be discovered by checking reason at the door. Nor is it to be found using reason. The process involves taking the rational mind as object, dis-embedding from it, seeing assumptions as they arise and how your experience changes as they change. When thoroughly deconstructed '“ not rationally, but with a higher way of knowing '“ linear time is yet another myth used to organize interactions between beings in the world of appearances.

Linear time is true enough for its purposes, but it has its limits. It doesn't cover every domain of experience. But, like any 'signifier' (a concept like 'timelessness'), if it doesn't correspond with an experiential 'signified' it will be meaningless. This is not unlike 'Emptiness', which can be spoken about by anyone but only comprehended by those who have realized it. Without the experience, one's mind has to come up with the closest available alternative (e.g. frozenness). But then we're talking apples and oranges. Getting a good taste of both clears up the confusion.