Exactly. Only a person who has not his feet in this earth can say such a thing. Movement inplies time, the earth turns around the sun and that takes time. Time exists since the first moment the universe appeared.
A day ago you said it would be best if you didnât respond to my posts anymore, and I agreed. You get very upset, and thatâs not healthy.
I donât believe the universe began with humans - we know that civilization did. Chronological time is measurement, a human invention. Go back and read the definition. Also, ask yourself why Krishnamurti didnât use âchronological timeâ instead of âtimelessnessâ when pointing to the immeasurable.
Nobody is disputing the ongoing development of earthly existence based on the evidence. Iâm saying that only humans have developed technology for measuring it, and that we conflate our measure of this movement with the movement itself. The description is not the described.
The assertion: âthe description is not the describedâ can be applied to every representation our mind creates of the universe, therefore the methaphysics concludes that the whole world is an illusion. Even science discovered that 99.9999 % of matter is void so what we see is an illusion.
Yet itâs a very solid and practical illusion, we can live in it, interact with it according to what our senses perceive. Therefore for what concerns our life we can gladly consider it real. This is not the case with ârealâ illusions like the abstractions thought creates which are not facts. Matter is a fact, time is a fact and you can always deal with a fact (as K. pointed out) while you cannot deal with non-facts. We donât conflate time with measurement but only use measurement to define and USE time. You cannot use an illusion so the very fact the you can use time is the proof of its existence.
Itâs more than a human measurement. Humans, as I have said, invented the units we use to measure chronological time but not chronological time. Krishnamurti doesnât agree with you either. You always have to be right donât you? What do you think would happen if you suddenly realized you were wrong about something? Would your whole image of yourself collapse? It appears that might well be the case.
Once again you quote something you heard K say or wrote and you donât know what it means. Itâs not really appropriate to this particular discussion of time because chronological time is a fact. An absolute fact. You ever had a science or math class? A situation where you had to use intelligence and logic to deal with facts and not opinions and beliefs? Doesnât look like it. You and Sree are flooding this forum with ridiculous beliefs and opinions that are probably not doing this forum any good.
Sree doesnât believe in violence and evolution. First of all no one really cares what he believes. Secondly, science isnât something you believe in or donât. Thatâs religion. Science are facts based on hard evidence, testing and research. You donât not believe in science. If you think science is wrong about something you prove it wrong with a new set of proven facts. But thatâs way too intelligent for some people to grasp. So here we are stuck with junk reasons and opinions.
Watch out! Sometimes someone who says a lot of seemingly silly stuff, can say something accurate.
2 Likes
Whatâs that suppose to mean? There is no âseeminglyâ about it. Her posts and refusals to understand something as simple as chronological time is absolutely idiotic. She is right, no matter what, and everyone else is wrong. Several people on here have posted facts showing her she is mistaken. But she remains ignorant and undaunted. You canât have any kind of intelligent discussion on here when the subjects are flooded with stupid, illogical comments.
Iâll be getting kicked off the forum now but for those who are really interested in Krishnamurti and his discoveries I strongly suggest you read his books. And maybe watch videos of his talks too. Personally, I prefer books.
I was just trying to take the edge off - but obviously stuck a pin in someone elseâs arse.
Leave out the word seemingly if you must - but I think in fact that would not only be a harsher statement, but also less accurate - as absolute certainty here seems unreasonable.
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to witness it, is there timelessness, or chronological time, or both?
I have heard that this is one of the rare moments of chronological timelessness
PS - Joke (just in case)
Well, I donât agree with that David. Religious scriptures could act as pointers to freedom when understood in the right spirit.
He said âalmost complete bullshitâ
As far as I can tell there are only 2 important messages in the Christian Bible: the âself is sufferingâ of the forbidden fruit and maybe the âfaith & forgivenessâ of Jesus.
The rest is useless if not detrimental. If you disagree, try defending homophobia or the Noahâs ark story.
If you agree - I would still appreciate it if you could point us in the direction of the most useful message/story of your favourite religion.
You mean to say, he keeps a door open, just in case⌠
I donât consider religion from a utilitarian perspective, but the immediate effect of religion in this phase of life was to allow for discoveries and indications to be not too much carried away by K speak. As for messages, Upanishads/Bhagavad Gita/ Brahmasutras. Kathopanishad for example detailing a dialogue with death itself. But wonât recommend to anyone. They, or other scriptures, wonât make much sense until we pass through the âdark night of the soulâ, so to speak.
There are many beings in the forest other than humans to witness the falling of the tree, so the question is really whether a human witness realizes the total significance of the fallen tree, because the forest inhabitants certainly do.
When no human witnesses or records an incident, and the evidence of that incident is never discovered, it may as well have never happened from the human point of view, and isnât included in our knowledge of time and its effects. This means that our sense of time is as incomplete as our sense of space and our self-knowledge, so why are we so confident that we know what time is?
Anything can be a pointer to freedom when examined in âthe right spiritâ.
2 Likes
Depends on whether the human is looking subjectively or objectively. Obviously for us mere mortals, the former is the case.
No idea what this means. Why would I want to be informed about something that happens where I am not present? Probably I am misunderstanding what you mean here.
Subjective selves have a notion of time because of our brains have the ability to reach back into the "pastâ and forward into the âfutureâ to conjure up memories of integral happenings. Happenings revolving around a central figure of the observer. It is the serial progression of these conjured âmomentsâ that gives us the very real impression of the continual flow we label as time. I donât understand your question. Why would we not feel âconfidentâ about this common experience?
Timelessness is a state of mind wherein there is no notion of time. Timelessness has nothing to do with time per se, either chronological or psychological. It is beyond the limits of subjective thought, through which alone the notion of time can come about.
Timelessness is where there is only seeing and no âmeâ and therefore no concept of time. Timelessness does not preclude the existence of actual time, just has no concern with it.
Thatâs my subjective take on how K uses the term timeless anyway.
Can timelessness (as you described) be a state you are going through when there is neither âyouâ nor concept of time while I am there watching you? If your state of timelessness does not preclude my existence in actual time, then this raise the question of the nature of reality.
So you never listen to the news or read a newspaper because you donât want to be informed about things that happen where youâre not present?
1 Like
Thought has the ability to reach across not only time but also space. When I read the news I am seeking information as to what is happening in the corners of a universe of which I am the center. Thought is a proxy of self, allowing the self to transcend the limitations of the physical body.
If any form of personal gratification is being sought through the activity of thought, the activity is self-centered, ergo I am present.
No if what you are saying is that thought, once stopped, can itself find out what it is and what it is not. Yes, if what you are saying is that once thought has stopped, âsomething elseâ can find out what thought is and what it is not.