Nature of time

[Alex123]

Hello all,

In your understanding, does time exist independent of dhammas, and dhammas are "placed in it" ?

Or is time something that mind imputes on conditioned things which have qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration while staying (uppādo, vayo,ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ)

Is time an objective thing, or is it a way that the mind sorts out experience?


With best wishes,

Alex

[ground]

Or is time something that mind imputes on conditioned things which have qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration while staying (uppādo, vayo,ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ)

The "qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration" is an imputation by mind which entails the concept of time and vv: since "time" is cultivated in the first place "arising, ceasing and alteration" appear to be "qualities".


Kind regards

[Alex123]

The "qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration" is an imputation by mind

Does this means that it is possible to make one live forever and not age (don't impute ceasing and alteration for the worse). ?

[ground]

The "qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration" is an imputation by mind

Does this means that it is possible to make one live forever and not age (don't impute ceasing and alteration for the worse). ?

In this context here this is no valid question since your question presumes the actuality of time.

Kind regards

[Ñāṇa]

Or is time something that mind imputes on conditioned things which have qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration while staying (uppādo, vayo,ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ)

I consider time and conditioned things to both be useful conventions.

[ground]

Or is time something that mind imputes on conditioned things which have qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration while staying (uppādo, vayo,ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ)

I consider time and conditioned things to both be useful conventions.

Yes and there are many useful imputations beyond that.


Kind regards

[Guinness]

What is time?

In my mind, there is no such thing as time. We are only passing through this, as we know it. We are so, as a world, pre-occupied by "time". Time this, time that.

I guess its just a way of measuring something, like weight and height. There is also no such thing as weight or height of course, its just 'us' that have chosen to measure things.

What about this then...if 'time' exists, why can't we see what will happen tomorrow?

[Buckwheat]

From a strictly scientific viewpoint, space-time is not separate from matter-energy. Does this translate to space-time is not separate from sankaras? The only thing left is Nirvana, and I will not speculate on that matter.

[Guinness]

From a strictly scientific viewpoint, space-time is not separate from matter-energy. Does this translate to space-time is not separate from sankaras? The only thing left is Nirvana, and I will not speculate on that matter.

And science, is only science as we know it/developed it/interpret it. Or, in other words another way of measuring. As we have established.

Who invented science?

[Kim O'Hara]

And science, is only science as we know it/developed it/interpret it. Or, in other words another way of measuring. As we have established.

Who invented science?

Science is essentially organised, disciplined, knowledge - inconsistencies tracked down and resolved, uncertainties investigated, etc.
No-one 'invented' it. It arose very slowly out of people wanting to be sure their knowledge was reliable.
Science is pragmatic. It doesn't look at our subjective experience and ask why we perceive things in one way or another - it just accepts what we perceive as being reliable indications of what 'really' exists.
And it has nothing at all to say about morality, ethics or religion.


Kim

[Guinness]

And science, is only science as we know it/developed it/interpret it. Or, in other words another way of measuring. As we have established.

Who invented science?

Science is essentially organised, disciplined, knowledge - inconsistencies tracked down and resolved, uncertainties investigated, etc.
No-one 'invented' it. It arose very slowly out of people wanting to be sure their knowledge was reliable.
Science is pragmatic. It doesn't look at our subjective experience and ask why we perceive things in one way or another - it just accepts what we perceive as being reliable indications of what 'really' exists.
And it has nothing at all to say about morality, ethics or religion.


Kim

Hi Kim,

I do tend to agree, as I think it only exists as we have established it. Which of course, is fine as it has obviously came about by us being curious and seeking a method of uniformly measuring and testing. But our experience comes from our own sensation and perception and we can't measure them; so its fair to say that objectivity is determined from experience, but sensation and perception will always remain subjective? Hence my view that we 'invented', or 'innovated' it.

And surely it does conflict with religion?

I just like asking questions, and by doing so, like to question my own knowledge - a bit like the science. I will always be ready to adopt and change views, but I doubt I'll ever be at peace because of it! I can't believe in blind faith. Yet.

[Kim O'Hara]

Hi Kim,
I do tend to agree, as I think it only exists as we have established it. Which of course, is fine as it has obviously came about by us being curious and seeking a method of uniformly measuring and testing. But our experience comes from our own sensation and perception and we can't measure them; so its fair to say that objectivity is determined from experience, but sensation and perception will always remain subjective? Hence my view that we 'invented', or 'innovated' it.

And surely it does conflict with religion?

I just like asking questions, and by doing so, like to question my own knowledge - a bit like the science. I will always be ready to adopt and change views, but I doubt I'll ever be at peace because of it! I can't believe in blind faith. Yet.

Hi, Guinness,
'Invented' has implications of a single new thing coming into being through the work of a single person, as in, "Edison invented the electric light." Science was not invented in anything like the same way but grew from earlier ways of organising knowledge, so saying it was invented is a bit misleading. You can say that it is a human construction, or way of defining things, without falling into the same trap.
And, as I said, it has nothing at all to say about morality, ethics or religion - very little to say about any subjective experience either - so it does not have to conflict with religion unless (if I can put it this way) religion is pig-headedly stupid.
If religion says the world was (literally) made in seven days, 6000 years ago, it collides with science - just as a driver veering off the road might collide with a tree. Is it the tree's fault? No. Did the tree set out to fight the car or kill the driver? No.
In the same way, science is a reality which irrational beliefs crash into.
I don't like blind faith, either - that's why I'm here instead of somewhere else. Buddhist cosmology is wrong, too, but you're allowed to reject it without being cast out of the community for heresy.


Kim

[Guinness]

Hi Kim,

Thats cool, its good to have the crack.

I'm enjoying what I'm finding on here, and hope to learn a lot. I just hope any remarks I make don't appear impertinent, as I'm not Buddhist, but I hope thats ok anyway. Don't hold it against me lol!!

Cheers

[Buckwheat]

To say that humans invented science is like saying we invented fire. Science is about listening to nature to learn it's languange and patterns similar to what the Buddha did for a totally different domain: subjective experience. Science focuses on "out there" while Buddha focused on "in here".

The strength and weakness of science is that it only studies objective physical reality. However, the OP was about time, which is not only a subjective reality that people overlay on experience. The mind-boggling aspect of Einstein's Relativity is that time-space is not separate from matter-energy. In the sense that the sun is real, so is time. This is supported by the fact that time is not a static, unchanging feature of the universe, but something that bends in a predictable manner in reaction to matter-energy. Therefore, science is relevant to this topic. If somebody asks about gravity, starting with the scientific facts about gravity would be a logical starting point for the discussion.

Does this leave room for speculation about time from outside the domain of science? Certainly. Our perceptions of time are fabrications, and that may be a fruitful topic of conversation. I see no conflict between religion and science. Referring again to Einstein: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I can't remember the Buddha discussing the nature of time. While impermanence is central to the dhamma, the nature of time sounds a lot like the atta (self) of time, right? If so, this question is only philosophical in nature, only leads to speculations and quarreling, and has no bearing on the cessation of suffering.

[Guinness]

To say that humans invented science is like saying we invented fire. Science is about listening to nature to learn it's languange and patterns similar to what the Buddha did for a totally different domain: subjective experience. Science focuses on "out there" while Buddha focused on "in here".

The strength and weakness of science is that it only studies objective physical reality. However, the OP was about time, which is not only a subjective reality that people overlay on experience. The mind-boggling aspect of Einstein's Relativity is that time-space is not separate from matter-energy. In the sense that the sun is real, so is time. This is supported by the fact that time is not a static, unchanging feature of the universe, but something that bends in a predictable manner in reaction to matter-energy. Therefore, science is relevant to this topic. If somebody asks about gravity, starting with the scientific facts about gravity would be a logical starting point for the discussion.

Does this leave room for speculation about time from outside the domain of science? Certainly. Our perceptions of time are fabrications, and that may be a fruitful topic of conversation. I see no conflict between religion and science. Referring again to Einstein: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I can't remember the Buddha discussing the nature of time. While impermanence is central to the dhamma, the nature of time sounds a lot like the atta (self) of time, right? If so, this question is only philosophical in nature, only leads to speculations and quarreling, and has no bearing on the cessation of suffering.

Hi Buckwheat,

Sorry, I wasn't saying we invented science; it was more about establishing it. So does it exist? Yes, I know it does as we know it, but is what we know right? Thats more the point of my question. Its a bit like saying when we [our bodies] die we will be re-born - how do we know that? That sounds awfully like blind faith to me. But this is why I have visited this site, to try and understand.

Anyway, sorry, off topic.

I'm not a science type person, though thats not to say I don't agree, or believe the results [as we know them]. So how does time fit in with Buddhism? Surely, for the purposes of the practice, time doesn't exist? Perhaps I should start another thread, as I really would like to get my head around this.

[Buckwheat]

So how does time fit in with Buddhism?

Sorry I got off topic. My main thrust is that time is a physical object. Therefore, it would fall under rupa (form), right?

[acinteyyo]

Hello all,

In your understanding, does time exist independent of dhammas, and dhammas are "placed in it" ?

Or is time something that mind imputes on conditioned things which have qualities of arising, ceasing and alteration while staying (uppādo, vayo,ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ)

Is time an objective thing, or is it a way that the mind sorts out experience?


With best wishes,

Alex

Hi Alex,
as I see it time is a concept made from experiencing alteration. In other words I don't think there is the experience of alteration because there is time as an objective thing but there is the concept of time because there is alteration of experience. Time does not exist independent of experience.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[Zom]

[Spiny O'Norman]

as I see it time is a concept made from experiencing alteration. In other words I don't think there is the experience of alteration because there is time as an objective thing but there is the concept of time because there is alteration of experience. Time does not exist independent of experience.

Yes, it does seem that our experience of time is defined by change, ie by anicca.

Spiny

[DAWN]

I think that the time is the most essential question of existance. All other question tourns around the time.

In my understanding.

Nature of time is Anicca. Why?
Because the time is the quantity of information per unity of consciousness / quantity of energy per unity of space
Nature of energy is anicca, nature of information is anicca.

When there is a lot of energy/information or a lot of consciousness, the time stream goes slowely (slowely means that for 1 conscious moment they have the same quantity of information that 10 moment of annother / for the 1 unity of space they have tha same quantity of energy that 10 of an another).
Thants why celestial beings have a burning/light body and have a most important life span agains our, and thats why in hell realms beings rebirn thousands and thousands times, cause the energy that they can "absorb" is very little cause they dont have developped consciousness, and if they performed an action of value "1" in human realm, they have to "absorb" this action per 0.00...001 during one life in lower realms, so to be absorbed this kamma must be lived 999..999 times.

I hope some body will understant that i mean

So conclution is that we must be AWERE if we want to reach the and of our kamma fastly .