Is time real?

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

It's an over-simplification but probably good enough for now. Absolute reality isn't actually absolute, it is reality before the differentiated consciousness separates it into relative/absolute reality.

This explanation you are giving me is based on the belief that my ego-consciousness is produced by my brain? This is a theory of western science. How dare you use it to explain Tat Twam Asi, a fundamental principle of the ancients of India?

This is the problem of westerners trying to explain Asian philosophy. Jung may be better than Freud but he is still a westerner.

[Uday_Advaita]

Originally Posted by ayar415

You are a brahmin and would understand.

Thanks. I appreciate.
Namaskar

Originally Posted by ayar415

How dare you use it to explain Tat Twam Asi, a fundamental principle of the ancients of India?

I gave you an answer and if you're not happy then do yourself a favour and don't ask me anything again.

Understanding the ego/Ahamkara and the self/Atman means that you can have a more meaningful relationship with the Absolute, because if your ego/Ahamkara is superimposed on the self/Atman then you have a relationship with your ego/Ahamkara, and that is not the Absolute but an 'invented thing' and therefore unauthentic Spirituality. Besides which, your answer only served to display how your ego/Ahamkara is dominant. The issue many people have when they ignore anything that's not labelled as Spiritual is that it can bite them on the backside. How do you know what you experienced wasn't the Absolute but simply your brain/ego-consciousness in survival mode? Because believe it or not they are similar enough to fool most undiscerning people.

Originally Posted by ayar415

only with coarse minds (e.g. cashiers at the store, the postman, etc.) that are caught in Maya.

I rest my case, this is judgement and judgement is Maya. We are all Atman and therefore Brahman regardless of whether or not you recognise it. And this is a reflection of your consciousness, and says nothing about those 'coarse minds'. The people who think they are not caught in Maya tend to be the ones caught in Maya.

As it happens Jung was an ardent scholar of Advaita Vedanta and Westernised the Ahamkara as the ego and the Atman as the self. One of the reasons he changed it was because he understood the subtle differences between the Eastern and Western minds, as he remarked in a discussion with Alan Watts. You'd be surprised how much of Western psychology is on a parallel with Eastern understandings of how the mind works.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Concerning cause and effect, what we think we are is firmly anchored within cause and effect - as Swami Vivekananda said "Whoso wears a form wears the chain" - and what we truly are is beyond cause and effect.

I'd agree with that in part, because here we are and for me there's something else going on. So while yes, there is a part of us that's beyond cause and effect, at the same time there's also the part of us that's made the choice to experience the cause and effect. We're all experiencing cause and effect, it's the "How?" that's the interesting part
Then again, in the struggle for freedom from cause and effect are we missing out on what's happening because of it? While there's been so much Spiritual technobabble thrown into this thread about time not existing, is there something to be gained from accepting its existence?

Originally Posted by Uday_Advaita

You are absolutely right about this
Namaskar

To keep it simple, if you can say 'That' as referring to the Absolute then it becomes and object to the mind and therefore the ego/Ahamkara. The paradox is that the Absolute is beyond the Absolute, and is both Absolute and relative.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In its simplest terms spirituality is the pursuit of freedom from cause and effect. The struggle is that also means freedom from Ahamkara and that is anathema to Ahamkara.

Spirituality is the pursuit of freedom from the false sense of self and the effects/karma that the false sense of self receives by causing/creating his/her false sense of self.

Ahamkara is from the Samkhya dualistic school of indian philosophy. Samkhya is consciousness and matter dualism. The dualistic Dvaita Vedanta regards Brahamn/God and the world as two different/distinct realities. Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) embraces absolute monism and regard all dualism as an illusion/maya, including the dualisms of Samkhya and Dvaita. Believing that the world is a dream/illusion/maya is a combination of Samkhya and Dvaita Vedanta philosophies, and has nothing to do with Advaita Vedanta. Even a person, teacher, or guru who talks about the world being a dream/illusion/maya in the name and context of Advaita Vedanta, are confused and combines Samkhya and Dvaita Vedanta philosophies together.

Advaita Vedanta regards consciousness and matter to be one, which is brahman and that Brahman and the world/matter are one and the same reality, hence the Advaita Vedanta saying of "one not two". This is ultimate reality. Both subject and object are brahman. The subject of brahman is not separate from the object of brahman. Problems, confusion and conflict arises when people combine the philosophies of Samkhya, Dvaita Vedanta, and Advaita Vedanta together or combine the philosophies of Samkhya, Dvaita Vedanta in the name/context of Advaita Vedanta, as seen on this forum. Advaita Vedanta is all about understanding one's self and thus brahman/oneness-wholeness without any delusions of duality/separation.

Concepts get in the way of us being present and observing/paying attention in the right here and right now, and only by ridding ourselves of concepts can we experience freedom from our false sense of self. Concepts were created for the false sense of self to understand, with parables, analogies, metaphors and etc, but the problem is that the false sense of self misunderstands, twists, misconstrues and etc those parables, analogies and metaphors.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

To keep it simple, if you can say 'That' as referring to the Absolute then it becomes and object to the mind and therefore the ego/Ahamkara. The paradox is that the Absolute is beyond the Absolute, and is both Absolute and relative.

The only problem I see with this, is that some people who read what you posted above, will take it to mean that all contents of the mind are an illusion, bad or negative.

[mary isaak]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

According to science all of time is happening all of time and all of timer affects all of time all of the time. That means effect can precede cause...

Thank you very much Greenslade.

If I understand correctly, we perceive time as being linear, we see cause and effect in natural event, which is very much my experience.
Still, time does not really exist, and it is possible to experience no time. Is this experience of no time necessary to understand our human existence?

Thanks!

[mary isaak]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

There's the interesting account of Natalie Sudman, who was travelling with American troops when the vehicle she was in hit an IED. She found herself in a coma and talking to a Spirit Guide who was giving her choices of injuries she would have...

Thank you for your reply Greenslade.
Interesting, I always look for the moment where I make a choice but cannot find it. I always find myself doing things for no reason. Maybe choices are made somewhere "out of time in the spiritual realm". This is still a puzzle for me.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Greenslade

While there's been so much Spiritual technobabble thrown into this thread about time not existing, is there something to be gained from accepting its existence?

How about "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's", replacing Caesar with space, time and causality. Learn to work the machine in order to be liberated from the machine and in that respect we acknowledge it has some level of existence.

What is said of Maya (the machine) is it cannot be said to be non-existent because it appears (we experience it) and it cannot be said to be existent because it's destroyed by knowledge (Self-realization, God-realization, Enlightenment).

I suppose one can say spiritual practitioners, by virtue of the practices they engage, do accept its existence on some level and what is gained by both accepting it on one level and earnestly seeking beyond that level is a better relationship with that reality pre-Realization, and that ripples out into the world.