Is time real?

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 189 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If you have no mass and "travel" at the speed of light you experience neither space nor time. From the perspective of a photon there is no travel over time, just an instantaneous exchange of action.

Relevant to SPACE and possibly "time", a friend of mine and I had an extraordinary experience early in the morning on a large open field (with no one in sight) at the Khumba Mela in Haridwar, India (1998). A sage literally appeared out of nowhere suddenly to answer very specifically a question we were discussing. He then vanished as mysteriously as he had appeared.

We returned to our ashram immediately to discuss this with our spiritual mentor who was sitting with other revered sages of India. As we described the person, who had been at the bandara (feast) the previous day, they sat in silence. Finally, my teacher stated that "he does this from time to time; everybody knows this". There's more to this story but this is sufficient to make my point.

It is clear that SPACE is not an issue for these beings who project their "physical" (or is it physical since we didn't touch him --- "no mass"?) presence. Are there any implications relevant to "time" in such a happening?

[Halloween Jack]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

That is a very good point. Please elaborate further as this seems to be going in a very positive direction..... regarding the nature of "NOW".

There’s no actual experience of before or after (except as a memory or thought.) In that sense there’s no such thing as time in experience. Apparent time is a measure of change - this is sometimes known as clock time. You know that it will take four minutes (of clock time) to boil an egg but there is never a move away from NOW (again, apart from thoughts in the head.)

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Halloween Jack

In that sense there’s no such thing as time in experience. Apparent time is a measure of change - this is sometimes known as clock time.

What you mean to say is that there is no such thing as time as a matter of material fact.

So, "there is never a move away from NOW", as you put it. In other words, there is always now. And yet, there is no "NOW" without the past (as memory) or the future (as thought in imagination).

"Time is thought", said J. Krishnamurti. Do you agree?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

This is an opportunity for people here to think "outside the box" on this particular "time travel" phenomenon or at least try to explain what is happening in the cases that have some verifiable previously unknown information being revealed.

I am glad that you brought up what I put in bold above, because it is very important. There are a few things that could be happening in the cases that have some verifiable previously unknown information being revealed, I explain them below:

1) The person could have inquired/asked one's true/original sense of self or atman/the universe/god or what have you, about said information/knowledge, which the person did not know, until the person recieved such knowledge/information, either consciously or subconsciously/unconsciously, without knowing it.

2) The information/knowledge could have come to a person spontaneously from the person's true/original self or atman, when the person had a clear mind, was only conscious, had zero thoughts and judments, and was not his/her false sense of self for the amount of time the experience took place. The person's true/original sense of self or atman, came out for a limited amount of time to be conscious of it. This is a form of intuition. Regular intuition though, is usually a feeling of knowing something is true, or feeling that something is about to happen, and it happens etc etc.

#1 and #2 above, which can be related or not to each other, comes from the all knowing self/atman and the unvierse, which is one with god/brahman, when the self is not busy or preoccupied with the thoughts of the conditioned false sense of self, these thoughts also include all spiritual/religious abstract analogies, metaphors, parables and the rest of it that make up the concepts, that are not understood clearly and correctly.

The spiritual concept of bliss is a major concept that is not understood clearly and correctly. Bliss, to a lot of spiritual people, is an emotional feel-really-good type of thing, when in reality, bliss is the mental state of being calm and at peace with everything. Bliss happens naturally, when one's self is not busy or preoccupied with the thoughts of the conditioned false sense of self, including all spiritual/religious abstract analogies, metaphors, parables and the rest of it.

The self /atman is always conscious/aware naturally, automatically on it's own, or dare I say mechanically, so the very best thing we can do, in our day to day lives, is to get our false sense of self out of our self's/atman's way, by not being busy or preoccupied with the thoughts of our conditioned false sense of self.

Every time I say the false sense of self, I mean the thoughts that the self have that are not true, and these thoughts that are not true, effect the self and/or the self identifies with the thoughts that are not true, thus the self becomes the false sense of self.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Halloween Jack

There’s no actual experience of before or after (except as a memory or thought.) In that sense there’s no such thing as time in experience. Apparent time is a measure of change - this is sometimes known as clock time. You know that it will take four minutes (of clock time) to boil an egg but there is never a move away from NOW (again, apart from thoughts in the head.)

Since there is only the NOW, wouldn't time travel require the same matter and energy to exist at both places, in the NOW, even though energy can neither be created nor destroyed? You don't need to answer that, I am just wondering and pondering.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by ayar415

"Time is thought", said J. Krishnamurti. Do you agree?

J. Krishnamurti mainly talked about psychological time/time of the past and future, thinking about the past comes from memory, and memory is faulty, and thinking about the future or better future is a crutch people use for psychological comfort, and to escape the physical NOW, and the thoughts one's false sense of self has NOW.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

IOW according to such thinking there is no good reason to take anyone else seriously.

Well, with spirituality being in the state spirituality is currently in, I would say don't take anyone, whom uses abstract concepts literally, do take them seriously. Abstracts are not (literally/concretely) the thing.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Well, with spirituality being in the state spirituality is currently in, I would say don't take anyone, whom uses abstract concepts literally, do take them seriously. Abstracts are not (literally/concretely) the thing.

well two things seem clear... one if you ignore input just based on your own biases you will end up with gaps in your knowledge... and two if you are pointing your eyes and ears around like lazers you will miss nuance in the things you decide not to look at.

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

J. Krishnamurti mainly talked about psychological time/time of the past and future, thinking about the past comes from memory, and memory is faulty, and thinking about the future or better future is a crutch people use for psychological comfort, and to escape the physical NOW, and the thoughts one's false sense of self has NOW.

Psychological time. This is why he infuriated me.

There is no such thing as psychological time. Krishnamurti confused David Bohm too. The physicist did not take Krishnamurti to task over that ridiculous term: "psychological time". Bohm accepted that there is such a thing and even try to fudge it into his theory on the Implicate Order. Fuzzy science.

Krishnamurti made a distinction between psychological time (his invention) and chronological time (by the clock) which we live by.

Seeking to be better or enlightened may be a spiritual journey from being a monk to becoming the Buddha. It is just plain desire for a better state. Why call it psychological time?

[Joe Mc]

Sounds like you are trying to deny the Human Experience which does and has experienced time in alot of different ways. This song alone speaks about 'times' which have a psychological objective basis, the experiences have consensus, growing from young to old.

Time - Pink Floyd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwYX52BP2Sk

It's probably more likely that there is no such thing as 'Clock Time'.

************************************************** ******