Time (click here to visit Journey to Nibbanna)

Time is just duration. A condition produced by an activity. It’s an idea rather than a fruit substance.

Everything has a start and an end and the duration is known as lifespan. This duration is felt to be an existence of something known as time (is it?). It doesn’t need to be reality.

Whether an activity produces time or not, once it starts, it has to end. If it doesn’t start, it doesn’t exist so it doesn’t end. The condition of start causes the condition of the end. Here it’s to do with decaying – the condition of matters. (Artificially things can last longer but not forever.)

Time can be argued for or against. Clearly, it doesn’t have to exist anyway.

Prof. Steven Hawking wrote the History of Time. The title itself confesses that time is an effect or produced by the start of an activity known as the Big Bang. As if time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. Yes, as long as Time is applied, physics will never be able to prove the start of the universe.

However, the start of the universe is also controversial.

What made the seed of the Big Bang? Without anything, how did the seed exist? The idea of the seed itself is indicating something existed before the seed itself. If the seed is claimed to be the start of everything and the only start that started everything, this is not science but another creationism.

Every event has duration. But no event needs duration. Duration is not precondition that determines the event to start, to last and to end. Duration is, however, conditioned by the event – what this event is all about. The event conditions the duration once it (the event) starts and the duration ends once it (the event) ends.

Hence, duration (time) is just illusion occurs in human feeling.

To establish the strength of my argument, I have to say that my understanding of time is how I understand the idea of time taught by the Buddha 2500 years ago.

Hopefully, I’ve made the statement clear to all readers.


From Journey to Nibbanna Yahoo Group Dhamma Discussion

…The Buddha still had to recall or process to reach the data. A clear example is - He said, 'I cannot see the start and the end of the samsara' when He was asked.

It's true the information (is) in the universe but the Buddha still had to take time to access the right information; however, as a Buddha, (He) didn't take much time - almost constantly, He could get the right answer.

The Buddha had, on the other hand, to plan - such as visiting, traveling, looking for the ones He should see and teach, etc.

So the standpoints of the Buddha were certainly free of perception but were still standpoints - the position from which one views. We cannot view from his position - this is certainly the truth. His position was unique. The way He saw the beings was full of metta, Garuna, etc. This is why I wrote - free from kilesas.

Questions (asked by Tep):

1. Does the universe have no end and no beginning? Why or why not?
2. Why does the samsara have no end and no beginning?

Answers:

The Buddha took Venerable Mogglana and let him hold the alms-bowl filled with very tiny seeds (of a plant I don't know in English). They visited Meyu after Meyu and every Meyu they arrived, Van Moggalana had to drop a seed. Even after the alms-bowl became empty, they had yet to go further. (Meyu is the mountain that is in the middle of a universe. According to the Buddha, every universe has its own meyu. Not all meyus or universe contain beings.) (Note: the Buddha and Van Mogglana could travel with the speed of mind – this is a teaching of the Buddha.)

1. I don't think there is any answer for this question if you mean the start of namma (mental matters) and rupa (matters). However, there are countless universes and they were born to die. A universe has a beginning process and ending process.

2. The Buddha didn't answer there wasn't the end or beginning -He only answered He couldn't see because it has been such a long, long time to see. I think you can feel what such a long, long time means here.
…

… Actually, I didn't mention the idea 'beginning-less time' is wrong but 'sort of not quite right'. The reason is time is only relation between two events - it's not actual reality to be a thing. Time is not a thing - it's not illusion either. It doesn't even exist.

It's true no motion (lacks) duration but no motion needs duration. Motion is energy-driven condition. Something burns and you know after the fuel is gone, there will be no fire. Please consider this example and answer 'What is time for? And where is the place of time?'

I don't mean motion is independent or free. Yet, it doesn't need time. We don't need time (nothing needs time to exist because time is non-essential thing for existence). Therefore, the universe doesn't need time. Why? Because time is not actual reality. So there is not interdependence between existence and time.

But people believe in time. Ancient people believed in time.

And also the people who lived within the Buddha's time believed in time. Thus, the Buddha was asked questions related to time (by some of them). Unfortunately, because of these people's deep belief or strong perception (and their intention was to fight for a win), the Buddha didn't explain to them. But He did explain about time.
…
Endless time or start-less time might be right; however, might not be right enough or maybe even just a witty answer that might miss the point. Well, this is rather a standpoint I guess. You see the Buddha didn't rule completely out the start of the beginning of the time.

Now you let me remember that 'time is just the relationship with human feeling of the length of many moments'. This always makes people to wonder through mis-perception about time.

The Buddha did say the length of the lifespan of rupa datu and the length of the lifespan of namma datu. (I guess I can put the two words together rupa + datu and namma + datu.) Yet He refused to say the length of the entire length between the start and the end of the existence (the existence of layman perception). All He mentioned was the five Khandhas. Apart from that, other perception could be loosed views - I mean they might be also right 'but sort of not quite right'.

I guess you can feel what I'm feeling about the idea of time.

Times are, in general: past, present and future. Apart from that no other time exists. It's clear that it's all about relationship with now. Yes, the past existed so the present moment is existing and the future exists for the beings who have not finished their samsaras. The futures of the Arahants do not exist.

Still it might be confusing.

I don't want to answer my own perception so I want you to read a good book about time answered by the Buddha Himself and other arahants.