Then time it seems would just be part of the illusion that we are not already what we are.

Eric,

Perhaps. But it might be more related to the idea (or illusion) that we should be something else. It is always, “I am greedy, but I shouldn’t be. I am lazy, but I should be productive.”

If that is where one is, that is where one begins. It is nothing to be ashamed of. People want to be free of that before they begin meditation, for example. NO! That is where one begins. With the fact.

The should be is not a fact; the wanting to be is. All of this begins with what we have. As painful as it may or may not be.

@Davidya; You say it much better that I. It is not just semantics. Stillness is everywhere. It is also everywhen. (laughs) You have forced me to realize though, that experience of stillness is filtered through or by perception as we bring the memory of it back into time. Not that the memory is invalid, but distorted so as to fit into a framework that the mind/brain can handle. At least that’s how I see it this morning, tomorrow it may appear as something else completely. One more good reason to let go of beliefs. (chuckles)

Stillness is that which underlies existence. I would suggest it’s only place is everywhere. (laughs)

Or are we getting semantically fussy

Thanks for your great comment. You have clearly pointed out the usage of time in the outward, chronological sense. Those things, it seems, are fairly clear to all of us.

I was speaking of time as it occurs within the mind. But this is not a functioning of time quite the same as what may happen in the phenomenal world (or whatever you want to call it).

I meant more of the idea of time to attain, to acquire. “I will become greater, I will get more, I will be better,” and so on. I use the term “time,” but it may be confusing in some way.

I don’t know what astrophysicists would do, but I would calibrate all movement in the universe to a central hub if there was one. A place of stillness. I would do the same with time. If time is relative then the fixed point that it would have to be relative to is Stillness.

Is there a fixed point, or a place of stillness? Is stillness relative to anything?

Yes, we build cages for ourselves with the instructions for our freedom. But perhaps this is as it should be, for the effort needed to break free may only strengthen us and makes our freedom all the more satisfying. Only a thought and not a belief ( you’ve taught me well, Davidya).

On the matter of time I feel that it and space are dependent on each other. Time would have no meaning without movement and vice verse. So just as we impose artificial geographic boundaries we call borders, we devise arbitrary segments of time in order to manage it. Not all divisions are without some logic or natural references though, like the phases of the moon or a sidereal year. But these are localized phenomena and on a galactic scale may have no meaning or counterparts.

But I think Takuin, you were speaking of time as it is used by mind, yes? There, as Einstein showed, it is completely relative. But relative to what? (I know, the speed of light, but we’re talkin’ strictly mind now.)
I don’t know what astrophysicists would do, but I would calibrate all movement in the universe to a central hub if there was one. A place of stillness. I would do the same with time. If time is relative then the fixed point that it would have to be relative to is Stillness. I’m not sure if I’m conveying what I mean very well, so I’ll just stop there.

Peace to All

It is nothing, but Davidya is correct as well. It is everything. This seems to be a paradox, but it is quite reasonable and simple.

This is where language may become more hindrance than help. It is easy to say all of this, but the real burden lies with the listener. How does the listener approach it? Is there an expectation of result? A desire to have a certain end? All of these things are implied in the process (if process is the right word).

The listener already holds the answers, but who they are sometimes screams so loudly that it is impossible to hear.

Thanks again for the vids. I am enjoying them.

Takuin

Thanks Takuin again for your open heart and your kindness.
warm regards.
iamasimpelman

I chose the word “nothing,” because if there is this liberation, or whatever, it cannot be known in the sense of memory, knowledge, or accumulation. So it isn’t as if one looks, and suddenly, they are told what is there. (Told in the sense of remembering)

One might be a seeker, and they go to a teacher that says, “It is nothing.” Or they go to a teacher that says, “It is everything.” Either way, what will they do with the words they hear? It is the job of the seeker to make these things into a system of practice, or to reject them out of their own tightly held system of practice. But maybe we are too hard on the seekers, eh?

I like to think of the seeker – the real seeker – as the person destroying the constructs he or she is given, and not the person building them up even higher.

To see beyond the construct…or perhaps it is better to say, to see without the construct.

But maybe I am just a romantic at heart.