Emptiness of time and others

[DarwidHalim]

There are some ideas, which I want to share with you about emptiness. Long time ago, I am asking myself about the emptiness of time. In our normal life, we all know that time exist. To be exact, actually the concept of time exists. Whether the time itself exist or not, according to Buddhism, it doesn't exist. I keep asking myself, why it doesn't exist. Finally, I realize that it cannot exist. The concept of time can exist, but it doesn't mean time exist.

I realize that the concept of time can exist because we human beings have a believe of existance, real, or permanent. When we believe existance, the concept of time becomes real. Beauty becomes real. Ugly becomes real. Molecule becomes real. Electrone becomes real. Proton becomes real. Anything can become real.

However, nothing is permanent. Everything keeps changing. Nothing can ever standstill forever. There is nothing! My body keeps changing. My current body and my body 1 second ago are completely different. My body keeps changing. My body which is permanent NEVER exist, simply because it cannot exist due to impermanent.

If something exists, it must have production, duration, and extinction. It must have these 3 things.

Now, let's look at duration. I have a iPhone. I can see my iPhone. It is real. Is it true?
If we use our normal eyes, we can see that it is real. But, suppose we have a super sensitive eyes, we can see that actually it keeps changing. I cannot see it in naked eyes. But, I am absolutely sure it is changing. The battery component is changing. The battery is not as powerful as before. THe cover is not as smooth as before. This is the prove that m iPhone is changing. If my handphone is permanent, then it cannot change. Something which is permanent cannot change. It is illogical to say something permanent can change! If it can change, it is impermanent!

Now, I can prove that my iPhone is impermanent. It changes every second. My iPhone now and my iphone 0.0000001 second ago are already different. It NEVER be the same. It means its duration is ZERO. There is no duration that this handphone is the same at very microscopic level. NEVER be the same.

If something has no duration, it means it can only have production (birth) and extinction (death). It means when the things exist (birth), and the same time as well it extinct (death). This definition is conflicting each other. Birth and death cannot exist together because according to definition, they are conflicting each other.

Therefore, it is concluded that production (birth), duration (living), extinction (death) cannot exist if we accept the reality of impermanent.

The question is how come people think there is production (birth), duration (living), extinction (death)? THis is because people have a SENSE of permanent. This wrong idea is simply the shadow of permanent. That is the consequence of accepting the idea of permanent.

If nothing exists, then what is iPhone 4? I remember there is 1 zen master say that when you realize that there is no boundary between you and me, you will enlighten straight away. This is very true. We have a sense that me is me, you is you. Your boundary and my boundary is clear, which is this human skin, human body. But do we realize that although this is skin seems like a boundary, actually it is affected by many things. When everything is affecting each other, where is the ACTUAL boundary? This concept of boundary is also totally WRONG.

People can argue that if I eat, you won't feel full. So, it is clear that what I do, it doesn't affect you. So, it must have a boundary. This is not true. Whatever, you are eating is processed by your body. Because of your body function, I cannot feel I am full. But this body function is not a boundary. It seems like a boundary, but it is not. This body collection is collected due to karmic energy, which makes it looks like 1. But, actually it is not 1. the body functions simply stop the effect of your fullness to affect my body. It is simply a stopping function. It is not a boundary. Stopping function means everything is interconnected. Everything is govern by nature function which is also called karmic laws. Due to some reason, it is possible that when you eat, I can feel full. As long as I can understand that function, it will work. This is not impossible because everything in nature is interconnected. There is no boundary.

There is a monk in Tibet who practice boddhicitta. I forget the name already. One time people throw a rock to the dog while this buddhist master is giving a teaching. Suddenly, he say ouchhhh. The dog feels nothing. This connection is possible because in nature everything is interconnected. Some of us cannot unlock it because we think everything is fix, has boundary. But, when we realize there is no boundary, nothing is fixed, everything becomes possible. Only few people can realize this and when they show this connection, we say "WOW, they can do magic". Actually, that is nothing. It is just the existance of connection in nature.

Come back to the iPhone 4. What is this iPhone 4, if it is not real. It is simply a collection of "energy", which is temporary there. Well, reality is unexpressible, but I just call it "energy" for the sake of conservation. It is just a collection that temporarily collect together due to some karmic laws. It is like a cloud. It looks so real, but we know it is just a collection of what we called "water". iPhone 4 is simply a collection of impermanent thing, which appear as if it is real, so solid. But in reality, it is not there. It doesn't have duration. Does it have? It always changing, how can it have a duration? Therefore, it cannot exist.

Once again, it is normal if we feel it exists, because our mind has been habituated to the concept of permanence. Time will come when you will realize this. It looks real, in reality it is not real. The union of appearance and emptiness.

In the heart sutra, it is said "Form is empty. Emptiness is form". This is what is referring to.

Regarding time. It is also no real. How to prove it? Let's look at present time. Present time means now. It always pin point to now. It can NEVER have a duration. If it cannot have a duration, how can we say it is real? We are simply crazy people. Contradicting ourself, isn't it? But, it is normal, because we have a concept of permanence, which is although wrong, we still believe it is true.

It is the same thing with body, mind, and anything you can mention. You won't be able to find any duration in anything which is impermanent. NEVER EVER.

We have a tendency that if we cannot find something or define something, we have a feeling of getting lost. Nothing anchor us. We feel not secure. It is really illusion. We also have a feeling that when we cannot define something, we cannot understand it. This is absolutely wrong.

Let's see when you eat orange. When you eat the orange, do you define it is orange? I think no. At least for me, I don't label it as orange. I simply eat without thinking. As long as I mindful, I know EXACTLY what is orange taste. Can I define the orange taste? EVEN BUDDHA CANNOT DEFINE IT!

Although I cannot define it, I know exactly what it is. This unexpressible can be fully understood if you don't destroy it with your concept. CONCEPT IS ALWAYS WRONG.

Everything can only exist due to label. Because of label it appears. You change the definition of that label, you get different object. But that object is simply not permanent, not real. Reality cannot be define partially. Reality can only be describe fully as a whole, together with its smell, taste, visual, etc. But how to define reality in such a way? Even Buddha cannot define it.

But, Buddha can realize it. You can also realize it.

Everything is simply 1. Yet that 1 simply doesn't exist.

[m0rl0ck]

(Verbatim quote removed)

Welcome to the forum How did you come to the above conclusions?

[Kenshou]

I think you might be more interested in something like advaita vedanta than theravada, Darwid.

[DarwidHalim]

I think you might be more interested in something like advaita vedanta than theravada, Darwid.

Wah, what is advaita vedanta? I will take a look. It sounds interesting. Thank you.

[DarwidHalim]

@m0rl0ck: That is just my view actually. I learn it from all buddhist tradition: Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen. I never fix myself to only Theravada. Each tradition has different way to show you reality. Although the tradition or the way is different, the reality that they pins point is the same.

[santa100]

Thanks very much for sharing DarwidHalim. All streams flow into one sea. From Anicca of Early Buddhism, to Prajnaparamita of the Mahayana. Although my root is the Nikayas, I also had a chance to read the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra, and learned about Emptiness, one of the central tenets of Mahayana Buddhism..

[pegembara]

I think you might be more interested in something like advaita vedanta than theravada, Darwid.

Wah, what is advaita vedanta? I will take a look. It sounds interesting. Thank you.

Advaita posits that all is one. There is no difference between one and all. The "self" is the "All". Advaita (literally, non-duality) is a system of thought where "Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman).

Brahman is the only truth, the world is an illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self
Adi Shankara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

In Theravada Buddhism the self is not to be found anywhere. All so called existence are the result of selfless activities of seeing, hearing. smelling, tasting, touching and thinking. There is no one doing the seeing, hearing etc.

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Bahiya sutta

[nameless]

CONCEPT IS ALWAYS WRONG.

Yet isn't this, in itself, a concept? One that also contains the concept right vs. wrong.
Concepts serve a function. And while they are limited and, as what you seem to be saying, impossible to be 100% accurate, neither are they just 'wrong'. They serve a function and if you use that function skilfully it helps. If you define all concepts as wrong and refuse to accept any, that you are well, in your words, destroying the understanding of the inexpressible with the concept of "concept is always wrong".

An important question is how does your understanding help you to relieve suffering? Do you say, well, the body is impermanent and always changing, so if your hands are cut off, it's just another change (not that I'm saying you should), or would you still be distressed, upset that you can no longer do some of your favorite things, you might not be able to keep your job, etc. (not that I'm saying you should be fine with it).

Or more realistically, if someone criticizes your theories, do you see the emptiness in that, or do you feel resistance to it?

[SamKR]

Hi DarwidHalim,

I have also been thinking about space, time, and impermanence for years, and I agree with you except a few things. For example you said:

It means its [time's] duration is ZERO.

Although I think everything is changing unimaginably fast, yet I cannot say that the duration of arising-passing away is exactly zero, though I think it tends to zero (in other words, infinitesimally small). So,

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme..."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

This topic is somehow related to another thread (Is Theravada "Realist"?) started by retrofuturist.

I think you might be more interested in something like advaita vedanta than theravada, Darwid.

Wah, what is advaita vedanta? I will take a look. It sounds interesting. Thank you.

I think DarwidHalim's statements are much closer to Buddhism (Theravada/Mahayana) than Advaita Vedanta.

[NDat]

If we always stay at present, here and now then there is no past and future. Therefore, there is no time.

[Pondera]

I think I can define the taste of an orange. It's sweet and has this citrus taste to it. Not like strawberrys, closer to mangos...but if you actually look at the texture of the orange; the edible parts are inside that translucent sort of sheath. And I think, unlike bananas or soft fruits like that, the orange has, like I said, the citrus taste to it... as if those little slices just pop in your mouth.

And in that sense it tastes very much like those other fruits which are a bit "see-through", like grapefruits obviously, but also like strawberries (in a sense). But that mostly accounts for the aromatic properties of the orange, this translucent sheathing property (also found in grapes).

Grapes and Oranges are perfect examples for comparison. They feel exactly the same in your mouth when you eat them because they both have the same virtual texture. But the taste of the orange is very much different, obviously, than the grape. But both the grape and the orange have the juiciness not found in bananas. So grapes and oranges are similar for this reason. But very different for another reason. And that would be the citrus part. So, I think I can define the taste of an orange. The taste of a grape would be very hard to define though.

I think time exists because we must admit to there being a past. If there was not a past, then where could we ever draw memories from? And I mean that very metaphysically. If you accept that certain people can see into past lives then you have only two options that account for memory. Both arise from the fact that the brain you have now isn't the same brain you had in a past life. Hence, memories cannot simply be stored in the brain. But then you might accept the more reasonable view held by society that past life recollection is a heap of superstition, of course memories are stored in the brain, and yada yada yada, "let's push that whole area into the realm of "nevermind" and go on rationally with our lives"; having never experienced the reality of past life experiences and so forth.

But assuming them (past lives) to be real, memory must have some sort of relationship to the past since we are able to recall things from actual past lives, and those memories were not formed in the eyes of our present vesicles, hence they are either stored in the past, as if the past were a real, although dormant feature of existence; or -the other alternative is that our karmic formation carries every experience it ever had with it throughout lifetimes. The former case is a better argument because in the latter we need to account for the storage space of memory existing in the karmic formation, which is hardly as good an argument as is the accounting for such massive, massive, massive amounts of life experience actually existing in something we usually call the past, which is in fact a mere essence of our previous lives trailing off into space like the dust off of an incoming meteorite. The Buddha recalled eons and eons of past lives as a direct result of full enlightenment. His relation to existence, without question, allowed him to view millions, upon millions of past lives. So, was his past life recollection a view into the far reaching past, or a sort of karmic unraveling of all his experiences stored up in his karmic being? He was able to simply stop his karmic formation. That might seem to imply that the long lasting karmic formation might carry memory with it. But I think the reality is that the karmic formation simply bears a relationship with the past which we might call memory, or recollection.

The future must also be accepted as a possibility. We are free beings who have the power to change our destinies. Defined in this way, the future is simply the allowable outcome of our possibilities. To deny a future is to accept determinism. But when you claim there is no time you allow for all possibilities and the actuality of existence is that there are a limited number of possible outcomes to one's life. If we even admit that every spelling misteake I evber make can be corrected in time by me simply goign back to the spelling misteake and correcting it, then we are admitting to an obviously inconsequential sort of world wherein possibilities exist. However, by admitting even this we are allowing for the existence of certain fortuitous junctions in life that are not perhaps so inconsequential as what is enacted and what results when I decide or decide not to go back and correct my spelling mistakes. Such junctions if they exist may be the difference between a happy destiny and an unhappy destiny. Virtue, Wisdom, and Knowledge enable a person to avoid the flow of fate that drags one down the unfortunate river of sadness. The future is not set in stone.

My only point is that the future is the time with which we have to make the most of our lives. We are singular in the sense that we can squander our time or make the most of it. Time is change in a sense. But moment to moment change is too linear an argument for the non-existence of time. Rocks even seem to remain the same for extended periods of time. The fluctuation of atoms and electrons on the inner most rockdems of these stones only amounts to vibration. And vibration does not discount existence. Vibrations imply continuation.

-Pondera

[Pondera]

'"The currents in the world that flow, Ajita," said the Blessed One,
'"Are stemmed by means of mindfulness ;
'"Restraint of currents I proclaim,
'"By understanding they are dammed"' (Sn.1035);

From "The Path of Purification Ch. 1.) 18.

[DarwidHalim]

CONCEPT IS ALWAYS WRONG.

Yet isn't this, in itself, a concept? One that also contains the concept right vs. wrong.
Concepts serve a function. And while they are limited and, as what you seem to be saying, impossible to be 100% accurate, neither are they just 'wrong'. They serve a function and if you use that function skilfully it helps. If you define all concepts as wrong and refuse to accept any, that you are well, in your words, destroying the understanding of the inexpressible with the concept of "concept is always wrong".

I think we need to differentiate between reality, statement, and concept.
Reality is indescribable. Concept and statement are all simply the tool which refer to that indescribable.

All buddha dharma written in the Pali or Sankrit texts are simply instructions, statement or concept, which pin point to the reality, but not the reality itself since it is indescribable.

Concept is definitely useful. Not doubt about it. But it is pitty. Why? Because it is concept itself that bind us in samsara. We are like a magician who display a pretty woman and has a lust to that woman. We don't know that pretty woman is simply illusion, simply appearance, and not real.

All concept are wrong because concept cannot tell us reality. In order to prove it actually is quite simple. When we have a formula, that formula is only valid for certain condition. When that condition change, that formula is no longer valid. Our formula may not work in the ghost realm, or in the hell realm, or in the god realm. Reality is beyond all that. Concept, formula, or whatever it is, cannot describe reality.

The formula can be correct and useful. But it doesn't mean it is reality.

In the sky there is no North, East, West, and South. They exist because of a compass. Outside compass, they cannot be define. They exist relative to a compass. That is why they are called relative truth. But the ultimate truth is simply non-exist (empty).

Similar with a mass. A mass can exist only relative to its measurement. The ultimate truth (reality), you won't be able to find it outside its measurement device.

If it is reality, you will be able to find it anywhere, anytime, and with anything. But, where can we find such thing?

There is nothing wrong with concept as long as we know they actually only trying to describe certain phenomena, where that phenomena actually cannot be pin point.

When everything is constantly changing, we cannot pin point anything. If we cannot pin point anything, where is the real thing?

We can argue this until end of the world. To end this argument, we need to do a vipassana meditation. Because only throught that meditation, we can prove it or experience it for the first time whether we can things exist or not. I like to think that Vipassana meditation is actually the time where we are eating the orange. Not, intellectually thinking and writing a description about the taste of orange.

CONCEPT IS ALWAYS WRONG.

An important question is how does your understanding help you to relieve suffering? Do you say, well, the body is impermanent and always changing, so if your hands are cut off, it's just another change (not that I'm saying you should), or would you still be distressed, upset that you can no longer do some of your favorite things, you might not be able to keep your job, etc. (not that I'm saying you should be fine with it).

Whether you are upset or not, it depends on how deep is your understanding about emptiness. If that emptiness has 100% become our way of life, we won't feel anything when someone chop our hand. Why? Because since day one this hand is not yours! If we think someone chop the tree, we feel nothing. But, when someone chop this can, we extremely angry and feel the pain. All this is because we have the concept of "MINE". I don't say that if someone chop my hand, I will still be happy. I will feel very sad because my attachment is still there and emptiness is not my way of life yet.

If we see Buddha's life in the past, we can give his body for others. At that time, he still hasn't realize emptiness. But, he already can do it. If we can do it when we realize emptiness, there is no single sadness.

If I can borrow 2 quotes from Prajaparamitha Sutra, it mentions:
"Perceiving that all five skandhas are empty saves all beings from suffering."
"Because There is No Obstruction, He Has no Fear,"

It is this reality that free us from worry, scare, etc. Because since day one, actually there is nothing.

We are worry about death. But, how can we die? If you can die, how can you reborn?

We life with concept all the time. And we don't realize that concept, which comes from dualistic mind, is wrong. It is fine to live with concept as long as we know that concept it wrong. We won't scare with it or get cheated by it.

There is a real example about a monk in Vietnam (1963) who burn himself because he wanted to protest about the freedom on buddhist practice. He is really an enlightened being. You can see this video and his story in this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dal0X0aiQg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc

He is the person who has understand emptiness fully and that wisdom has become his way of life. When there is nothing since day one due to the reality of emptiness, how can the fear arise?

Similarly, there is no fear for a Buddha to go to the hell.

Things exist, but only exist as appearance.
Since they simply appear, they have no essence.
When there is no essence, why are we actually fearing about?????

In reality, whether we can achieve that level or not, that is a different story. But, that is the final realization that we are heading to.

[DarwidHalim]

I think I can define the taste of an orange. It's sweet and has this citrus taste to it. Not like strawberrys, closer to mangos...but if you actually look at the texture of the orange; the edible parts are inside that translucent sort of sheath. And I think, unlike bananas or soft fruits like that, the orange has, like I said, the citrus taste to it... as if those little slices just pop in your mouth.

-Pondera

Yes, you can define the taste. 1 million people can also define it. But, you will get 1 million version about the taste of orange. That definition is only true realtive to the one who makes the definition, not to others.

WHen you define sweet. Your sweetness and my sweetness are not same.

No matter how long you describe the taste of orange, I will not know what is that taste of orange before I actually eat it. Even, I ever ate other oranges. The taste is simply difference and beyond words.

That is the reality of orange. Indescribable. Other reality is also like that, indescribable.

[Ben]

That is the reality of orange. Indescribable. Other reality is also like that, indescribable.

No, I don't think so.

[DarwidHalim]

That is the reality of orange. Indescribable. Other reality is also like that, indescribable.

No, I don't think so.

May I know which reality is descriable?

[Ben]

That is the reality of orange. Indescribable. Other reality is also like that, indescribable.

No, I don't think so.

May I know which reality is descriable?

Yes.

[Pondera]

Yes, you can define the taste. 1 million people can also define it. But, you will get 1 million version about the taste of orange. That definition is only true realtive to the one who makes the definition, not to others.

WHen you define sweet. Your sweetness and my sweetness are not same.

No matter how long you describe the taste of orange, I will not know what is that taste of orange before I actually eat it. Even, I ever ate other oranges. The taste is simply difference and beyond words.

That is the reality of orange. Indescribable. Other reality is also like that, indescribable.

It's true. You can talk and talk and talk to another person about a certain perception as long as you want. But unless the person has already experienced that perception, that person will never truly understand the "taste" of the object.

But you go even further to say that when two people have both experienced the "same" perception, they don't really experience the same thing .

You're correct in the first part.

But the statement "your sweetness is different than my sweetness" is incorrect.

Buddhists define sense perception in three ways. There's a great Wikipedia entry on this titled "Ayatana".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana

From Wikipedia:

"Aflame with lust, hate and delusion"

In "The Vipers" discourse (Asivisa Sutta, SN 35.197), the Buddha likens the internal sense bases to an "empty village" and the external sense bases to "village-plundering bandits." Using this metaphor, the Buddha characterizes the "empty"[21] sense organs as being "attacked by agreeable & disagreeable" sense objects.[22]

This is really too hard a concept to explain. My sweetness is the same as your sweetness because all things pertain to consciousness simultaneously. My consciousness exists in the same sphere of perception as your consciousness. Hence, even if I am watching something from the east and you are watching this same thing from the west we are both watching the same thing. It does not matter that you see the object from a different angle. It does not matter that you see the object as being large and I see it as being small. That object remains the source of our perceptions.

In other words, there are a million people with two million eyes, but there is still only one reality. There is still only one time. And I do in fact understand the principle of relativity; so when I say there is only one time I mean that even with the effects of gravity there is only one basis for change, upon which the universe exists, even if, because of the grossness of material objects, "swells" of gravitational potential come about and dissipate in various pockets of space.

Essentially, the understanding of this whole thing was best described by the Buddha with the comparison to an empty village. He ascribes emptiness to our sense faculties, and alludes to the fundamental nature of sense objects as having a sort of reality that really only pertains to our perceptions.

I could go on and on trying to explain the understanding of this concept, but the only way for someone to understand it is for that someone to empty their selves of ego, rid their selves of the conscious cling and then go ahead and perceive reality as it truly is. If you do that, rest assured, we will be able to agree that the world exists in a certain manner. It exists in so much as material objects cling to consciousness, consciousness clings to material objects, and material objects cling to perception.. -in so far as consciousness pervades both the perceptive faculties and the objects which we sense. Other than that I can't say anymore (thank heavens).

-Regards.

[lexybam]

Buddhism theory might proves that there is no time, well that is for the believers of the theory, but the truth is that there is time in the life of man and we are all being guilsded and armed by that. For example, the writer used his iphone, but in a more sensible way, there is time to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner. If there is no time we probably would have not specified time for that.

[DarwidHalim]

Buddhism theory might proves that there is no time, well that is for the believers of the theory, but the truth is that there is time in the life of man and we are all being guilsded and armed by that. For example, the writer used his iphone, but in a more sensible way, there is time to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner. If there is no time we probably would have not specified time for that.

We need to be very careful when we are touching the emptiness in buddhism.

For those who are not familiar with it, emptiness is equivalent to nothingness.

The teaching of emptiness according to 1 buddhist tradition is actually secret in the past. The main reason is it is extremely easy to be misunderstood. It happens to 1 king (i already forget the name). The monk explained to him emptiness, but he misunderstood it as nothingness. The king thoughts there are nothing, so he did so many bad things, and he end up in the hell.

In one of the vows, explaining emptiness to someone who are not ready will cause harm to the person who explains it.

What is negated in the emptiness is only 1 thing. And that thing is the self, essence, or identity. It doesn't negate the phenomena. It doesn't negate the show. It doesn't negate the display. It doesn't negate the appearance.

Same with time.

Emptiness of time doesn't mean we negate the show of time. We do not negate the display of time.

What is negated is the existance of self called time.

If we think this universe has something called time, this is what is negated.

If something really exists, it is necessary for us to grasp it so dearly. It makes sense and it is correct to hold it.
But, if that thing is not there, doesn't exist, we are grasping illusion. Where is the point?

For anyone who think time exist, they will soon or later feel tired in their journey to save all beings.

For Boddhisattva, they promise that:
"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide to dispel the misery of the world"

Bodhisattva is criple if he is deluded. Soon or later, he will collapse in his work to fulfil his promise.

If he doesn't have perfect mind free from illusions, if he cannot perceive this reality directly as what it is, which is empty of essence, he is joking to save all beings for as long as space endures.

When he fully realize the emptiness of time, he will never ever feel tired. He will never ever feel - I have done this for so many thousand thousand thousand thousand years, why there are still many beings in samsara? UNtil when I can finally finish it?

This kind of thinking will never ever appear even for a single instant when we directly perceive the emptiness of time.

The wrong views about time is completly dissolved, completely cease without any trace. The seed is completely burnt out.

This is the importance of understanding the emptiness of time.

If we cannot understand it, we will just think this is just a scholar debate, no value. We miss the link between what we are studying with what we are doing in life.

But if we can understand it, we will strive to fully realize and appreciate it.