Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
OK..well lets take the Niyamas model..which itself a construct of course , but could be described as a metaconstruct that enables an understanding of constructs..
According to that model Uta-Niyama roughly equates to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Those laws function even in the absence of a sentient being to experience their functioning.
On the surface of Venus for example, or Uranus...if we assume for the sake of discussion that it is unlikely that there are sentient beings in those locations.
The way that we might respond to Uta-Niyama would no doubt involve a number of constructs but that has no bearing on what is happening right now on the surface of Venus...or even what happens when you stand in front of a moving car.
What happens on the surface of Venus, and the observer that records what happens, or the absence of such an observer,and all the paradigms and constructs that engenders, all arise in mutual dependency..
@SpinyNorman said:
Measurement of time perhaps, but time itself?
Measurement of time or time itself, both being relative but useful.
Its like concepts of past and future, great for remembering where I put my keys yesterday, and planning on my work tomorrow (clothes ready, having gas in the car etc.) useful constructs but not a thing in and of themselves.
@Citta said:
Time is not a construct..but it does arise dependently along with everything else. And our experience of time is subjective and leads to various constructs.
Some yogis forgo their wealth actually. I think Khenpo Rinpoche gives away whatever people donate to him. I believe I read that. Maybe it was a different dharma teacher. I am not sure what a construct is in relation to time. But I don't think we can find the smallest moment. And I agree it is dependently arisen.
The subjective nature of time and space means that independent reality must be timeless and spaceless. Time and space are experiences and since independent reality means independent of experience, they simply do not apply. And for anything to be different from anything else, space and/or time has to be presupposed, which means that independent reality is undifferentiated. With no space or time, there can’t be two different things. You could call independent reality “One”, but that isn’t entirely true when you consider that “One” is only significant in relation to “Two” or “Many”, which are concepts precluded by the space- and timeless nature of reality.
Thus, Independent reality is an immaterial, undifferentiated, spaceless, timeless something that through our consciousness appear as ourselves and the world around us. But having no extension in time or space, independent reality is indistinguishable from nothing at all. How this nothing-like reality gives rise to something like the world we cannot know, because knowledge is limited to the realm of experience. But neither can we say that independent reality is causing our experience, because the notion of causality relies on premise that time and space are objectively real.
Though there is one thing that we can know about reality. We know that somehow, our consciousness exists. It is a self-evident truth. It cannot be doubted, for the very act of doubting is proof of consciousness’ existence.
Consciousness itself is not an experience. Experience is unreal in the sense that it does not exist objectively but merely subjectively. Consciousness on the other hand, is the apparatus of perception, the underlying substratum and thus the reality of experience, and its existence is objectively real. Unlike perceptions and experiences, in an objective independent reality, consciousness exists.
But since independent reality is undifferentiated, there cannot be more than one consciousness – for in a undifferentiated reality, plurality does not exist. And neither can one say that consciousness is a “part” of reality, for “part” presupposes spatial concepts which do not apply to an objective reality. Consciousness is rather a function of reality and it is this function that gives rise to the experience of the world and ourselves.
But if all we know about objective reality is that consciousness is a function of it, on what ground can we say it exists at all other than as consciousness itself? Even if we choose to believe in its existence, it is indistinguishable from nothing at all, which is to say that we believe in something that is like nothing. And to say that objective reality exists separately from consciousness isn’t logically sound either, when you think about what “separately” means – it involves spatial concepts which, again, have no purchase in objective reality. If both consciousness and an objective reality exists, they exist together as “One”. In fact, the question is whether or not the concept of existence can even by applied to an objective reality. After all, the concept of existence is derived from the realm of experience and thus, it must be inapplicable. And yet paradoxically, we are here – and the existence of consciousness is undeniable.
The inevitable conclusion is that consciousness must be all there is to objective existence as such, and thus is consciousness not just the substratum of experience, but the ultimate reality of all.
>
I find time seems to speed up when I meditate? Only after about 10 minutes. I read somewhere it has to do with breaking the fight or flight response. >
>
Comments
I am assuming nothing of the kind. Read the recent posts in their context.
The assumptions being made are elsewhere.
In that case Citta I have some trouble understanding these two lines.
Then why would asking me to send you my next months income constitute evidence for not everything being a construct?
Really ?
Jepp. Seriously I am interested in how you make the distinction into constructs and things that are not constructs but are still coarising?
OK..well lets take the Niyamas model..which itself a construct of course , but could be described as a metaconstruct that enables an understanding of constructs..
According to that model Uta-Niyama roughly equates to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Those laws function even in the absence of a sentient being to experience their functioning.
On the surface of Venus for example, or Uranus...if we assume for the sake of discussion that it is unlikely that there are sentient beings in those locations.
The way that we might respond to Uta-Niyama would no doubt involve a number of constructs but that has no bearing on what is happening right now on the surface of Venus...or even what happens when you stand in front of a moving car.
What happens on the surface of Venus, and the observer that records what happens, or the absence of such an observer,and all the paradigms and constructs that engenders, all arise in mutual dependency..
I think asking how long 5 minutes is,** on this site**, is simply asking what is the nature of reality?
In this instant, the measured length of 5 minutes is largely our ego's effort at carving itself some space from the chaos.
Measurement of time or time itself, both being relative but useful.
Its like concepts of past and future, great for remembering where I put my keys yesterday, and planning on my work tomorrow (clothes ready, having gas in the car etc.) useful constructs but not a thing in and of themselves.
@Citta I think I understand what you mean. Even if I do not entirely agree.
Some yogis forgo their wealth actually. I think Khenpo Rinpoche gives away whatever people donate to him. I believe I read that. Maybe it was a different dharma teacher. I am not sure what a construct is in relation to time. But I don't think we can find the smallest moment. And I agree it is dependently arisen.
I am not sure either...
>
I find time seems to speed up when I meditate? Only after about 10 minutes. I read somewhere it has to do with breaking the fight or flight response. >
>
Time flies when you're having fun?