Space and Time in Buddhism

fofoo

Hello everyone,

As you might know, the concept of space and time underwent an evolution in western thought. Once we had newton`s concept of time and space, that basically said that space is composed in three dimensions , time being a skalar that runs only forward with constant "speed". The universe was basically seen as a big room with a clock.

With Einstein came the Theory of Relativity, and the space-time model. Time and space where showed then to be relative. Sparing Details here (I never got it completely anyways), the implication is crucial. Reality is not what we believed to be for a long time. Immanuel Kant claimed that time and space are nothing "real", but the are the modes of our perception. You can imagine it like a computer programm that runs and produces your conciousness. without your conciousness, not space and time, since they are not the property of the world (outer objects you perceive). I tried to formulate this starting as easy as possible, but it is complicated and i do not claim i have undestood all. What I would like to know from you is if there are concepts of space and time in Buddhism and how they look like.

Jason

fofoo,

Yes, there are concepts of space and time in Buddhism, although what they look will probably vary from source to source. One example:

What is time? Strictly speaking, it is a mere concept which does not exist in an absolute sense. On the other hand what space is to matter, time is to mind. Conventionally we speak of past (atīta), present (paccuppanna), and future (anāgata).

Past is defined as that which has gone beyond its own state or the moments of genesis, development, and cessation (attano sabhāvam uppādādikkhanam vā atītā atikkantā atītā).

Present is that which on account of this and that reason enters, goes, exists above the moments of genesis etc. (tam tam kāranam paticca uppādādikkhanam uddham pannā, gatā, pavattā = paccuppannā).

Future is that which has not yet reached both states (tadubhayam' pi na āgatā sampattā).

According to Abhidhamma each consciousness consists of three phases - uppāda (genesis), thiti (development), and bhanga (dissolution or cessation). In the view of some commentators there is no intermediate thiti stage but only the stages of arising and passing away. Each thought-moment is followed by another. Time is thus the sine qua non of the succession of mental states. The fundamental unit of time is the duration of a thought-moment. Commentators say that the rapidity of these fleeting thought moments is such that within the brief duration of a flash of lightning there may be billions of thought-moments.

Matter, which also constantly changes, endures only for seventeen thought-moments, being the time duration for one thought-process.

Past is gone, Future has not come. We live only for one thought-moment and that slips into the irrevocable past. In one sense there is only the eternal NOW. In another sense the so-called present is the transitional stage from the future to the past.

The Dictionary of Philosophy defines time "as the general medium in which all events take place in succession or appear to take place in succession."

Atthasālini states that time is a concept derived from this or that phenomenon. And it does not exist in reality; it is merely a concept. (Tam tam upādāya paññatto kālo nāma. So pan' esa sabhāvato avaijjamānattā paññatti-mattako eva). (Abh.S. Ch. III, Note 73)

There is a great deal of information concerning topics such as these in the commentarial literature, especially for the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Regards,

Jason

Jason

fofoo,

Also, there is this from the Venerable Thanissaro:

The Buddha's teachings on action, or kamma, and his accompanying teachings on rebirth, are often dismissed as unessential to his teaching, something he simply picked up from his Indian environment. Actually, they are central to his teaching, and form one of his most original insights. Although many people assume that the Buddha derived his teachings on kamma from a view of the cosmos as a whole, the line of experiential proof was actually the other way around. After directly observing and analyzing the role of action in shaping his experience of time, he then followed the implications of his observations to confirm his vision of the process of rebirth and the structure of the cosmos that lies under the sway of time.

In the course of his Awakening, the Buddha discovered that the experience of the present moment consists of three factors: results from past actions, present actions, and the results of present actions. This means that kamma acts in feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; while present actions shape not only the present but also the future. This constant opening for present input into the causal processes shaping one's life makes free will possible. In fact, will — or intention — forms the essence of action. Furthermore, the quality of the intention determines the quality of the act and of its results. On the mundane level there are three types of intentions: skillful, leading to pleasant results; unskillful, leading to painful results; and mixed, leading to mixed results, all these results being experienced within the realm of space and time. However, the fact that the experience of space and time requires not only the results of past actions but also the input of present actions means that it is possible to unravel the experience of space and time by bringing the mind to a point of equilibrium where it contributes no intentions or actions to the present moment. The intentions that converge at this equilibrium are thus a fourth type of intention — transcendent skillful intentions — which lead to release from the results of mundane intentions, and ultimately to the ending of all action.

The Buddha's direct perception of the power of intention confirmed for him the process of rebirth: if experience of the present moment requires the influence of past intentions, then there is no way to account for experience at the beginning of life other than through the intentions of a previous lifetime. At the same time, the power of the quality of intention provided the framework for Buddha's vision of the cosmos in which the process of rebirth takes place: there are pleasant levels of rebirth — the worlds of the Brahmas and the higher devas; unpleasant levels — hell, the realms of the hungry shades, common animals, and the angry demons; and mixed levels — the human realm and some of the lower deva realms. Even in the pleasant levels of rebirth, however, the pleasure is unstable and impermanent, giving no sure release from suffering and pain. The only secure release comes through transcendent skillful intentions, leading to the experience of nibbana, totally beyond the process of rebirth and the constraints of space and time. (Iti Intro)

Although, it's certainly not at the level of Einstein.



Jason

Simonthepilgrim

As I recall, Einstein argued that there is no "Now". The argument is pretty persuasive.

Jason

fofoo,

Perhaps this article by John M. Koller entitled On Buddhist views of devouring time might also be of some interest to this discussion.

Jason

Bobby_Lanier

fofoo: this is always an interesting subject. Our idea of space, for example, uses the idea of volume whereas for the Greek it was topos or place. And even the idea of space as volume might be changing. And rather than say it myself I will let Eddington say it.

Some distinguished physicists maintain that modern theories no longer require an aether... I think all they mean is that, since we never have to do with space and aether separately, we can make one word serve for both; and the word they prefer is `space'. — A. S. EDDINGTON New Pathways in Sci. ii. 39

I speculate that space as volume is presently becoming space as aether in which space is something rather than a nothing. We might even call this kind of non-volumetric space, shunyatâ (with the -tâ as a substantive) which seems to fit nicely with aether.

Shunyatâ was certainly on the minds of Buddhist thinkers like Maitreyanatha or Arya Asanga. In the Madhyanta-vibhaga, attributed to Maitreyanatha, we learn that emptiness (shunyatâ) has characteristics (laksana). It can be realized (sâdhana). Its essence is the non-existence of duality (dvayabhava) and the existence of the non-existence of duality, and so on. Emptiness is synonymous with suchness (tathatâ), reality limit (bhuta-koti), the unconditioned (ânnimitta), the absolute reality (paramartha) and the fundamental reality (dharmadhatu).

Turning to Einstein's general theory and its reliance on aether (ether) he writes:

“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

This "ether" in Einstein's carefully chosen words seems to chime with shunyatâ. That it is not a 'ponderable media' is of course significant. In addition to its imponderable nature, laws of mechanics don't apply to it nor does it seem to be temporal since it is without motion.

Here below I have also included Nikola Tesla's views on the aether as well.

"There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."

Tesla's view, with out a doubt, is fascinating. From this we can imagine shunyatâ materializing itself as rupa or form—in fact the five skandhas. The idea that form is emptiness (shunyata) would suggest that form is a modification of aether. I think Buddhists were going in this direction with the Heart Sutra.

rupam rupan na prithak
(form emptiness evidently form form not different)
sunyata sunyataya na prithag rupam
(emptiness emptiness not different form)
yad rupam sa sunyata ya sunyata sa rupam
(this form that emptiness this emptiness that form)

I hope these contributions are enough grist for the space/time mill, fofoo.


Love ya'll,


Bobby

Jason

fofoo,

On space:

ākāsa

'space', is, according to Com., of two kinds:

limited space (paricchinnākāsa or paricchedākāsa),

endless space (anantākāsa), i.e. cosmic space.

1. Limited space, under the name of ākāsa-dhātu (space element), belongs to derived corporeality (s. khandha, Summary I; Dhs 638) and to a six fold classification of elements (s. dhātu; M.112, M.115, M.140). It is also an object of kasina meditation. It is defined as follows: "The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to indicate the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter; or its manifestation consists in being untouched (by the 4 great elements), and in holes and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited. It is on account of the space element that one can say of material things delimited that 'this is above. below, around that' " (Vis.M. XIV.63).

2. Endless space is called in Atthasālini ajatākāsa, 'unentangled', i.e. unobstructed or empty space. It is the object of the first immaterial absorption (s. jhāna), the sphere of boundless space (ākāsānañcāyatana). According to Abhidhamma philosophy, endless space has no objective reality (being purely conceptual), which is indicated by the fact that it is not included in the triad of the wholesome (kusalatika), which comprises the entire reality. Later Buddhist schools have regarded it as one of several unconditioned or uncreated states (asankhata dharma) - a view that is rejected in Kath. (s. Guide. p. 70). Theravāda Buddhism recognizes only Nibbāna as an unconditioned element (asankhata-dhātu: s. Dhs. 1084).

Sincerely,

Jason

fofoo

Thanks everyone for so much feedback! Much stuff to read and think that I surely will do in future(is there such a thing as future?:-P).

Is anyone of you familiar with Kant`s transcendental Ideality of space and time? I come from that corner and try to catch Buddhism from there

FYI:Some reads on the topic from that perspective:
http://www.meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Biography/Immanuel_Kant/three_points_in_kant.htm
http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/western/lect_9.html

fofoo

Elohim wrote:

fofoo,

ākāsa

'space', is, according to Com., of two kinds:

limited space (paricchinnākāsa or paricchedākāsa),

endless space (anantākāsa), i.e. cosmic space.

1. Limited space, under the name of ākāsa-dhātu (space element), belongs to derived corporeality (s. khandha, Summary I; Dhs 638) and to a six fold classification of elements (s. dhātu; M.112, M.115, M.140). It is also an object of kasina meditation. It is defined as follows: "The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to indicate the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter; or its manifestation consists in being untouched (by the 4 great elements), and in holes and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited. It is on account of the space element that one can say of material things delimited that 'this is above. below, around that' " (Vis.M. XIV.63).

2. Endless space is called in Atthasālini ajatākāsa, 'unentangled', i.e. unobstructed or empty space. It is the object of the first immaterial absorption (s. jhāna), the sphere of boundless space (ākāsānañcāyatana). According to Abhidhamma philosophy, endless space has no objective reality (being purely conceptual), which is indicated by the fact that it is not included in the triad of the wholesome (kusalatika), which comprises the entire reality. Later Buddhist schools have regarded it as one of several unconditioned or uncreated states (asankhata dharma) - a view that is rejected in Kath. (s. Guide. p. 70). Theravāda Buddhism recognizes only Nibbāna as an unconditioned element (asankhata-dhātu: s. Dhs. 1084).
Jason

Thanks Jason.

The difference between Limited space and endless space is not yet clear to me. I currently cannot think of space as something other than mind made and infinite (in mind). A final boundary of space is unimaginable. On close observation, we see that there is only theoretical space, as well as there is only a theoretical vaccum fully empty of everything, in reality, no such thing is found, or am I wrong?

I must admit that I drew this from other philosophies, but at the same time, it is easy veryfiable by everyone. Everything we call space, be it the space in an empty coffe mug, a room or something else is only called so because matter around delimits it. In short, its the invisibe delimited by the visible. What actually is in there is not nothing, but at least on earth, air.

Little thought experiment: Consider someone was born and raised in a room with one window, and the poor guy never was let out until his 18 birthday. However, he was allowed to look out of the window every day for an hour. He never saw any other living being than himself. He also does nothave a mirror but a TV, which he also was allowed to watch one hour a day. The TV (flat screen, shape of the window, integrated into the wall to look like a second window) would be playing a live stream of the same what he sees when looks out of the window. Do you think the guy actually would figure out a difference between what he sees in TV and what he sees when he looks out of the window? (Ideal condicitions given, he never could open the window,he had no remote control of the tv and so on). What I want to say with this little sad story is, would the guy figure out there is actually space outside the window, or would he consider it just another TV? I do not neccessarly expect an answer to that question, it can also be mereley food for thought if interested.

From my current POV, anantākāsa would be endless space in mind, declaring cosmic space as infinite would be mere speculation and imo violate Buddhas words in

SN 44.8 Vacchagotta Sutta

Regards

Paladin

Hello Bobby,

First class fellow! I have searched high and low for the meaning of time and space but alas, these two "dimensions" are, imho only valid in the skandhic world. If we really intuit on time and space, it is really a unit of aging (of the body and the mundane brain)and I think they have no brearing in the "spiritual" world. I have looked at some of the reference that you cited. Indeed, various philosophers seem to understand the very substance that supports time. This substance might be of the so-call "ether" or whatever. They, however, still make a lot of senses. And I am greatfull that we have this opportunity to share views and learn from each other.



Paladin

fofoo

Also thanks from my side boby, for that excellent post. However, I have to admit I never got into that idea of an ether. Has anyone seen one ever? What is the purpose of it when since the forumlation of the special RT it is not needed any more? For the rest of your post and some others here, I have to admit I currently lack the knowledge to answer them, but I will, as soon as I think I got an idea

Regards

Palzang

Space and time are simply the perceptions of our deluded minds that suffer from the basic root delusion of "self" and "other". Ridding oneself of that delusion rids oneself (if one can even talk about "oneself" then) of the delusion of space and time. As is taught in the Kalachakra tantra, when one truly understands the nature of all things then one can move in space and time just as one moves from one room to another.

Palzang

fofoo

Palzang wrote:

As is taught in the Kalachakra tantra, when one truly understands the nature of all things then one can move in space and time just as one moves from one room to another.

Palzang

Thanks Palzang, that`s an interesting information.

masteravatardavidsta

Right now I'm reading Eckhart Tollie's book,"A New Earth". In it he discusses just how "time" as we understand it does'nt truly exist at all. He goes on to explain how the only reality that exists is the present "moment"-the eternal "NOW".This means that "past" and "future"are mere theories.And that all there is is a NOW devoid of anything other than space,and silence-along with the "fantasy"believing that there might be something "more".

Bobby_Lanier

Buddhism seems to adopt a different conception of time rather than our modern, abstract conception of time in which time is treated as a property of matter.

The Buddhist conception of time deals almost exclusively with immaterial forces such as viññâna, karma and the karma result in which the subject becomes samsarized. Accordingly, we may conclude that karma is not manifestation of physical matter or our body. But from the Buddha's standpoint, it is true to say that our physical body is the result of karma.

Also, I think, in terms of physics that torsion waves could very well be related to time. Kozyrev did a lot of theoretical and expermental work in this field.

Karmic willing, one might argue, creates torsion waves which have huge durations and speeds which can, I believe, resonate with an ovum. Along these lines, the following are quite interesting:

In view of the evidence the conclusion is difficult to avoid that the term viññâna [consciousness] in Early Buddhism indicated the surviving factor of an individual which by re-entering womb after womb (gabbha gabbham: Sn. 278, cp. D.iii.147) produced repeated births resulting in what is generally known as Samsara. — Wijesekera, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1962

‘Were descernment (viññâna), Ananda, not to fall (okkamissatha) into the mother’s womb, would mind-and-body (nama-rupa) be constituted there?’ ‘It would not, Lord’. ‘Were descernment, having fallen into the mother’s womb, to turn aside (vokkamissatha) from it, would mind-and-body come to birth in this present stat?’ ‘It would not, Lord’. — D.ii.62–3

Monks, it is on the conjunction of three things that there is conception. If there is here a coitus of the parents, but it is not the mother’s season and the gandhabba is not present—for so long there is not conception. — M.i.265–266 [MA.ii.310 explains gandhabba as the being who is coming into the womb...the being about to enter the womb (tatrûpakasatta)...about to come into that situation, being driven on by the mechanisms of kamma.]

At any rate, I have decided to pause here. I plopped down the above as theoretical launching points for further discussion.

Love ya'll,


Bobby

Bobby_Lanier

fofoo wrote:

Also thanks from my side boby, for that excellent post. However, I have to admit I never got into that idea of an ether. Has anyone seen one ever? What is the purpose of it when since the forumlation of the special RT it is not needed any more? For the rest of your post and some others here, I have to admit I currently lack the knowledge to answer them, but I will, as soon as I think I got an idea

Regards

fofoo, I just remember I had this in my files.:)

Some distinguished physicists maintain that modern theories no longer require an aether... I think all they mean is that, since we never have to do with space and aether separately, we can make one word serve for both; and the word they prefer is `space'. — A. S. EDDINGTON New Pathways in Sci. ii. 39

Love ya'll,

Bobby

psikoticsilver

Through my eyes, time is something that we all make for ourselves, through our own choices, causes, effects.

If you think of space time, quantum physics and the like, the theory of the parallel universe is at the center of almost every debate. Other dimensions, straddling our own within a distance of mere nanometers apart.

A good analogy is thinking of time and life as a forked road. One road leads to a beautiful sunset on top of a high mountain, the other leads to a mysterious and dreamy twilight on a calm beach. How different is your perception of reality if you choose one over the other?

Reality and time are what you make of it. I find this idea is prevalent in Nichiren Buddhism. Your LIFE is what you make of it. Without your conscious decisions, life as YOU KNOW it does not continue, rather it forks off into another path.

Just think of a tree. Each branch sprouting a different branch, sprouting a different twig sprouting a leaf... etc... all of them exist simultaneously amongst each-other, yet they all depend on each-other to exist.

You should watch a movie called, "What the Bleep Do We Know?" I am absolutely positive you will find is enthralling, and shockingly you will finally discern the similarities between science, sociology, philosophy and religion.

not1not2

What can be said about space (& time), aside from the objects that fill it?

What can be said about objects, aside from the qualities that compose them?

What can be said about qualities, aside from their perception?

What can be said about perceptions, aside from their corresponding states of consciousness?

And what exactly can be said about those states of consciousness, aside from objects, qualities & perceptions?

metta
_/\_

treederwright

Pelzang on the money! i beleive that nagarjuna talked about space and time and thier inherent refutation. No space , yet theres space, not time, but time exists. lol The two truths are the greatest ever expounded system.

futurenets

just starting on both buddhism and space and time so forgive me if I'm confusing this topic ...

I like the idea that minds need time like matter need space but I'm also reading fabric of the cosmos by Brian Greene who talks about the speed of light is constant at 670,000,000 mph e.g. guy travels at 500,000,000 mph. after one hour stationary observer and guy both see their watches increment by one hour. but when guy compares his watch to observer it's slower because time and space (components of speed) where adjusted for him so speed of light could remain constant.

any feedback appreciated.

futurenets

so

at 10:00 watch 1 remain stationary and after 1 hour it shows 11:00.

at 10:00 watch 2 goes on a 500,000,000 mile journey in 1 hour so

speed = distance/time = 500,000,000 / 1 = 670,000,000 which is incorrect so spacetime law makes it 500,000,000 / 0.746 which now equals 670,000,000.

after 1 hour watch 2 shows 10:45 (45 = 60 minutes x 0.746)

I think?

futurenets

correction I think "after one hour stationary observer and guy both see their watches increment by one hour" after one hour (observer time) watch 1 increments by one hour and watch 2 increments only by 45 minutes.

David

Simonthepilgrim said:

As I recall, Einstein argued that there is no "Now". The argument is pretty persuasive.

I'm pretty sure Einstein believed now is all there is. Past, present and future have no true borders between them so there is only one moment in time and this is it. We just break it down in easy to manage chunks.

Whoa, this is an old thread.

robot

ourself said:

Simonthepilgrim said:

As I recall, Einstein argued that there is no "Now". The argument is pretty persuasive.

I'm pretty sure Einstein believed now is all there is. Past, present and future have no true borders between them so there is only one moment in time and this is it. We just break it down in easy to manage chunks.

Whoa, this is an old thread.

That's what I was gonna say. Simon said that 7 yrs ago.

Jeffrey

Jason said:

fofoo,

Perhaps this article by John M. Koller entitled On Buddhist views of devouring time might also be of some interest to this discussion.

Jason

I looked up fofoo and couldn't find what it means.

Dennis1

Kant also included extension in his categories. I think that speaks to time and space.
Discursive thought operates in time and the imaginary internal constructs we make create space. So we have a sense of reality. However (not trying to be authoritative here), I think there is only present time. Another German philosopher said we only have time because we care. That makes sense to me. This care that considers form real and a being, a viewer of reality, extends into the past and the future. I don't think simple awareness does that. When we have form and beingness we have time and space. This is a natural view of our world and our selves. I think this view is perfect and inspires us to care for others and develop Bodhicitta. I think space is a special category and somehow supercedes our mental processes. I think time is everywhere the same and is present time-the now which we experience in Pristine Cognition. Space is a mystery to me and I would like to hear other views. Nice question. Thank you, Dennis

Dennis1

futurenets said:

correction I think "after one hour stationary observer and guy both see their watches increment by one hour" after one hour (observer time) watch 1 increments by one hour and watch 2 increments only by 45 minutes.

This is the view of time as a measure of consecutive change.
But, when you look back at those changes you experience them in the now. When you project forward you also project them in the now. There is no other time for experience or awareness. The fact that things change and persist is acknowledged in the statement that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Awareness is only now-there is no other.
This is what Krishna said when he said 'I have come as Shiva, destroyer of worlds.'
When he showed Arjuna his past life faces they were all seen in the now. Krishna existed in the now. In the now the ground luminosity dawns. All else is illusion born of care. Mind you, I'm not tryin to put down care-I'm just sayin yeah so things appear to change-so? There is also presence. Best, Dennis

Dennis1

I have experienced objects as holes in the ground luminosity. This indicates to me that form is indeed empty. This imputes time measured by the consecutive change of objects (which are empty) as also empty. This leave space and the light (which may be self-generated, I don't know) as the actual condition wherein awareness is founded.
I suspect that space is filled with light and our awareness is filled with light and we consume our personal light with perception and discursive thought. When we cease our constant creative flurry our natural light of presence dawns. I would like to hear more from others. Bewilderment arises from the creation and maintenance of self and the imaginary so I suspect this agrees with my awareness of the condition. The ground luminosity is the constant referent and the rest is emptiness-but lovely and perfect.
Best, Dennis
P.S. I have studied modern physics and I'm pretty sure they are lost.
They have accepted a lot of self contradictory ideas and invent answers which they verify with incremental changes in formulas. Math can prove anything if you don't mind that your equations blow up into infinities every time you touch zeroes. If form is emptiness than those zeroes and infinities are probably the only actuality in the whole shmear.
dlc.